Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER.)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered on Wednesday 14 June.

RAILTRACK (WAVERLEY STATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION
BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Rwanda

Mr. Desmond Browne: When she last met British non-governmental organisations to discuss the situation in Rwanda; and if she will make a statement. [123169]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I met representatives of United Kingdom and Rwandan non-governmental organisations during my visit to Rwanda last month. Rwanda is a desperately poor country recovering from a terrible genocide in 1994, which the international community shamefully failed even to try to prevent. Progress since 1994 has been considerable. The UK is playing a major role in supporting the Government and people of Rwanda in trying to promote development and reconciliation.

Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I preface my supplementary question by observing that representatives of all the UK NGOs to whom I have spoken and who have a presence in Rwanda applaud the Government's decision on bilateral debt. That said, I recall that it was intended once that heavily indebted poor countries such as the very poor Rwanda would be fast-tracked for international debt relief. What has happened to that proposed action, and when can we expect debt decision day for Rwanda?

Clare Short: The importance of that decision was that Rwanda is a post-conflict country. Under previous arrangements, it would have requited a much longer track

record of good economic management before it qualified for all sorts of International Monetary Fund and World Bank support, which would in turn have been required before HIPC relief could be achieved. Rwanda has been fast-tracked, and is now working on an interim poverty reduction strategy. I cannot remember the exact date, but that will be finalised in a matter of months, taking Rwanda to the point of beginning the debt relief process. I am pleased to say that it is doing well.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State will know that the United Nations has just produced a report tracking the progress of women since the Beijing conference five years ago. With that in mind, and given the experience that the Select Committee on International Development and I had in Rwanda of talking to women survivors of the genocide and hearing of their terrible suffering and problems, can she say what influence she has had on the Rwandan Government over how they deploy the survivors fund? Can she ensure that the benefit of that fund goes to the survivors of the genocide, and no one else?

Clare Short: Yes, indeed. When I went to Rwanda, I met one of the young women who runs the surviving widows organisation, which represents about 30,000 women. Many of those women have HIV because they were raped. Many were mutilated. Many have children. Many have memories of seeing all the members of their family slaughtered before their eyes. What they went through is unimaginable, and that is what reconciliation must deal with in Rwanda. We are providing support to the survivors fund, as well as to that organisation. I have not heard criticism of the use of the fund. The problem in Rwanda is with capacity; most educated people were slaughtered, so even when good will exists, often there is not the administrative capacity to follow through on policy. I share the hon. Lady's objectives, and we are doing all we can.

Mr. Paul Goggins: Given the progress made on conflict resolution in Rwanda, will the Secretary of State say why she believes Rwanda is engaged in conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Clare Short: Rwanda has what I might call the best case for being involved in the DRC. Fighters there wish to return to Rwanda to complete the genocide. For Rwanda, to fight back means that the north of the country has been pacified, and things in Rwanda are better accordingly. The war is using resources, which obviously is not beneficial. We need implementation of the Lusaka peace accords, which Rwanda backs strongly. Rwanda needs peace in the DRC and security. The Ex-FAR and Interhamwe, who want to complete the genocide, must be disarmed so that low-level members may return to Rwanda and international criminals go to the international tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Mr. Paul Burstow: If she will make a statement on the provision of education in countries involved in conflict. [123171]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Conflict seriously disrupts lives and livelihoods, and education is a major casualty. The needs of displaced children are particularly acute. While all possible effort must be made to provide education to displaced children, progress in meeting the target of universal primary education by 2015 will depend on the resolution of conflict and a return to a focus on development.

Mr. Burstow: Is education not part of the solution to the conflicts? Given that smart aid has proved effective at delivering humanitarian assistance in many countries, can the same approach not be used for development aid? Given that education is a key way to unlock potential and reduce conflict, how can it be right that countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan have had their budgets cut? Generation after generation of children have not had education. Surely the Government should do more through smart aid to get money to assist those children.

Mr. Foulkes: Of course education is part of the solution, and poverty eradication is the key to getting rid of some of the major causes of conflicts. However, it is very difficult to ensure that there is proper education, and to get children into schools, and schools running properly, where conflicts exist. Where conflicts are escalating, as they are in Ethiopia and Eritrea, it is doubly difficult to achieve those goals.

Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that no Government who are committed to delivering universal primary education should be prevented from doing so because of a lack of resources? Will the Department for International Development be able to make progress on that issue at the United Nations millennium summit?

Mr. Foulkes: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In the past three years, the Department has spent £300 million—11 per cent. of our Budget—on education, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and south-east Asia. Nevertheless, I give my hon. Friend this pledge: we aim to do a great deal more.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that in areas of conflict, people lose their lives not only because of the conflict itself, but because of the disease that ravages such areas? What role does the Department have in providing education for young people—particularly in Africa, but, unfortunately, increasingly in south-east Asia, too—on the dangers of AIDS? Specifically, what is the Department doing to support the excellent work being done by the World Health Organisation?

Mr. Foulkes: Given the response that the hon. Gentleman received from my hon. Friends, I am a bit reluctant to agree with him. On this occasion, however, I agree with him 100 per cent; he is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] He cannot be wrong every time.
I had the privilege of visiting Mlazi township, in South Africa, to see for myself the work being done with peer education, which entails youngsters talking to other youngsters about what needs to be done to prevent

HIV-AIDS. Additionally, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the Prime Minister announced that we are spending £100 million to help to eradicate AIDS in Africa. Again, however, we plan to do a great deal more.

Oral Answers to Questions — Kosovo

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What financial support the European Union is providing for the administration of elections in Kosovo. [123172]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The European Commission has contributed 5 million euros to the combined civil registration and electoral enrolment exercise currently in progress in Kosovo. The United Kingdom share of that contribution is almost 1 million euros. We have also directly contributed £1.25 million.

Dr. Godman: I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend's officials who are administering aid programmes in Kosovo. Not long ago I was in Kosovo, and I saw that they are doing great work there. Given the turbulent conditions in Kosovo, it will be extremely difficult to administer fair municipal elections. Is there not a case for ensuring that some municipal seats are reserved for Serb candidates and other representatives of minority communities?

Mr. Foulkes: I am aware that my hon. Friend visited Kosovo with the Foreign Affairs Committee in March, when some of our officials were there on an assessment mission—which we are following up with a great deal more help to Kosovo. We are trying to encourage the Serbs to register and to participate, but so far, very few of them have registered. That is due in part to intimidation from Belgrade. We think that more has to be done to encourage Serbs to participate, and we are examining how, in terms of voter education, we can support them in doing so.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What action is the Department taking to ensure that there are enough international police officers in Kosovo to ensure that those elections will indeed be fair and free?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand that the Government have taken action by providing police officers from Northern Ireland. I am not sure of the exact details of the arrangement, but I undertake to reply in detail to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the recent increase in murders of members of minorities by the Kosovo Liberation Army, how can the Government guarantee anyone's safety? Is it not clear that Kosovo is now being run by a bunch of terrorists?

Mr. Foulkes: We cannot guarantee that. We do not have responsibility for it; the United Nations Mission in Kosovo has the responsibility. We do whatever we can to support UNMIK: we have made a substantial financial contribution and provided personnel support. I hope to be


able to visit Kosovo in July, and I and undertake to look into any problems or issues raised by my hon. Friend or by any other hon. Member.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: We getting used to hearing the Government announce plans for new expenditure, only to find that they involve a re-announcement of the same money, but it is worrying when doubts are cast on this country's aid budget. Today, yet again, the Minister has said that this country will give a great deal more help to Kosovo. Will he answer the question raised in the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Kosovo, which was published today? Of the £100 million aid announced at the Brussels conference in March by his colleague the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on stability pact financing, how much was new money and how much had already been announced? Is the Financial Times right to suggest that the Government are callously redirecting the Balkan aid programmes?

Mr. Foulkes: With respect, I did not announce any additional assistance. I dealt with the question of the registration of Serbs and with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The European Commission is spending 865 million euros. That has already been announced; I am merely repeating it. Bilateral assistance from European countries provides an almost equivalent sum. There are, of course, other calls on our budget—from Africa, south Asia and elsewhere. On other occasions, the hon. Lady has accused us of spending too much in Europe and not enough in Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Development Work

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If she will make a statement on progress in reforming the EU's development work. [123173]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We have been working since 1997 to try to improve the very poor quality of EU development efforts, which take up one third of my budget. I welcome the commitment of the new European Commission to reform. A statement of overall EC development policy and an action plan to implement the reform process are now being negotiated, but the impact of the promised reform has yet to be felt on the ground and there is, as yet, no plan for implementation.

Mr. Savidge: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is it true that over the past 10 years, the European Union has reduced spending on the poorest countries? If so, can that be explained or justified?

Clare Short: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right: 75 per cent. of EU aid went to the poorest countries in 1987, whereas the proportion is now 51 per cent. That cannot possibly be justified. It arises from a fractured decision-making structure and lots of gesture spending, whereby large amounts are announced—often without any analysis of how the money will be spent or how it will promote development—in response to the political concerns of the day. That leads to extremely poor

development assistance, as has been demonstrated by all the evaluations that we have requested. We have a well argued reform agenda, but there is a long way to go.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Secretary of State agree that to those of us who are glad to be members of the EU and proud of much of what it has achieved, its total failure to manage its aid budget is an obstacle to our support? Will she commit herself to doing her best either to ensure that the EU has the resources to put in place the administration necessary for the swift disbursement of aid, or to repatriate a large proportion of the budget that we provide?

Clare Short: I completely agree that such failures bring the EU into disrepute. The Commission and member states together provide 60 per cent. of worldwide overseas development aid and comprise the world's biggest single donor. If Europe had a clear vision of how to promote development in the poorest countries, it could be a major force for good—more powerful than any individual European country could be, because it could gather critical mass and exploit the international reach of all the countries of Europe. However, the EU's current performance is not good enough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are working hard on a reform agenda. Chris Patten said recently that if Europe cannot do better in the next few years, it should be less ambitious in what it asks member states to provide, perform well on that basis and then build up again. In that way, we might achieve a better quality effort.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mozambique

Mr. Steve McCabe: In which areas of Mozambique the main British aid effort is concentrated. [123174]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working at national level to support Mozambique's impressive commitment to reform. We are supporting customs reform, health and education reform and providing budgetary aid. I am happy to tell the House that I have recently decided that Mozambique should have a further £40 million in budgetary aid. Our provincial focus is in Zambezia province, which is one of the poorest areas of Mozambique and was a major centre of fighting during the civil war. We are focusing there on de-mining, land reform, rural roads and micro-finance.

Mr. McCabe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that before the floods, Mozambique was almost a model in Africa for progress in its economy and efforts to heal the divisions following the brutal civil war? What progress is the country making in recovering from the devastating effect of the floods?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; Mozambique is a star. After years of war and bad economic management, it raised its economic growth to 9 per cent. a year. That is the kind of level that countries in Africa need to move the economy forward and reduce poverty. Mozambique is a country of desperate poverty, but with a very powerful commitment to reform and making great progress. The floods set it back, and this year's economic growth


will probably be 5 per cent.—but still positive. The expectation of all donors in the international financial institutions is that Mozambique will recover and get back on its path of growth and reform.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the Secretary of State confirm that her departmental report this year includes a cut of £24 million in spending on Mozambique over the next three years? Is that not a reflection of the fact that under Labour the British aid budget expressed as a percentage of gross national product has fallen from 0.27 per cent. in 1997 to 0.23 per cent. in 2000? Will she confirm that that is a clear breach of the manifesto commitment that she gave to increase the aid budget expressed as a percentage of GNP?

Clare Short: No, I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman's questions confirm the fact that he has serious numeracy problems. There has been no cut in our aid programme. This year, there has been the biggest increase in aid spending in one year—an all-time record in the British aid programme. Because the OECD development administration committee in Paris counts in calendar rather than financial years, there is a technical flaw in the figures, as it says in its announcement. The hon. Gentleman needs to go back to school for some arithmetic lessons.

Mr. Streeter: The Secretary of State's excuses simply will not do. She used to attack us on the basis of the GNP figures, and she must accept those figures herself. She cannot confirm my points—though she is wrong—so will she confirm that she is presiding over the lowest GNP spend on aid for 30 years? Will she confirm that for the first time in a decade, despite all her spin and hype, the British aid spend is less than the average of OECD countries? Will she confirm that even according to her Department's figures, the average GNP spend on aid over this Parliament will be less than that over the previous Parliament? She said that under Labour, GNP spend would go up; it has gone down. Is it any wonder that the British people are beginning to reject this Labour Government?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has got serious problems with any attachment to accuracy and truth. It is the job of Oppositions to oppose. but it is also their job to accept facts as facts. I have just told the hon. Gentleman that, after years and years under the Government of whom he was a member—in a junior capacity, admittedly—there was decline and decline in Britain's aid budget. That has been reversed. This year there is the largest ever increase in a single year. There is a technical measure in the OECD development administration committee's announcement, but it adds that that is a technical measure, and that Britain's programme is going up. So, no: the hon. Gentleman is wrong, wrong, wrong, not attached to the truth, and has real numeracy problems.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Government's record on aid to Mozambique underline their policy of helping countries that show positive signs, as Mozambique has done since the end of its civil war? The fact that so much has been done to overcome the disastrous floods shows that the Government have

responded in a positive way. Does not Mozambique send out a positive signal to Angola, on the other side of Africa, about what could happen if it got over its civil war and went forward in a positive way?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Important studies have recently been conducted on where aid is effective. It is effective where there are reformers, and big resource transfers come behind them to leverage and speed up economic reform, and then reform in education and health care. We are moving away from the gesture spending of the European Commission and the previous Government and towards backing reformers. That says to any country that if it goes down that road we will be behind it, and it can have fast economic growth and improved social programmes. We are beginning to get reformers setting good examples for others.[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — Zimbabwe

Mr. Edward Leigh: If she will make a statement on aid to Zimbabwe. [123175]

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on her Department's activities in Zimbabwe. [123176]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I apologise for being slow in responding to these questions, Madam Speaker, but I could not hear for all the noise.
Our country strategy paper for Zimbabwe was published in April 1999. It outlines the case for economic reform and land redistribution in order to improve the life opportunities of poor Zimbabweans, and makes clear our willingness to provide resources of up to £36 million for that purpose. Unfortunately, there has been no such reform and the economic and political situation, as everybody knows, has deteriorated very badly indeed. Our programme is therefore limited and focused on HIV-AIDS, water and rural livelihoods. Our spending is £12 million. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It is very noisy. No wonder the Secretary of State cannot hear, and neither can I. The House is so noisy that I could not even hear whether she is taking Questions 6 and 7 together. I understand that she is. Let us have a little less noise.

Mr. Leigh: With a country such as Zimbabwe, whose economy has been so ruined by corruption and cronyism, is not the lever of British aid a significant one? Has sufficient weight been applied to that lever, or is the truth that, with their policy of appeasement of the dictator Mugabe, the Secretary of State and her colleague are the Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax of the situation? They are dithering while our passport holders are being ethnically cleansed, humiliated and driven from the country.

Clare Short: President Mugabe has made it clear, repeatedly and on the record, that he had a much more friendly relationship with the previous Government than with the current Government, and found them much more helpful. There has been no appeasement by the


Government. The situation in Zimbabwe is an absolute tragedy. The economy is shrinking, inflation is at 80 per cent. and there is political thuggery, killing and intimidation to prevent people from standing for election. We have not appeased Zimbabwe in any way. The House, the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members should not do exactly what Mugabe wants, which would allow him to go back to his heyday and pretend that he was fighting the defenders of the white regime in Zimbabwe. That is what he wants, because he is in so much difficulty with his people. We should stand up for what is right and let the people of Zimbabwe control their future.

Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Lady will know that I support her projects for fighting AIDS and HIV, and the water purification projects, but although she has referred to the dreadful Government-inspired campaign of intimidation, violence and murder, the has not mentioned the fact that the Mugabe Government are spending millions each week on a war in Congo that is all about lining the pockets of Mugabe and his cronies. Does she accept that the people of Zimbabwe will perceive our aid programme as support of the Government, even though that perception may be wrong? Would it not be better to stop all our aid programme until this dreadful man is thrown out of office?

Clare Short: I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman says, except his underestimation of the intelligence of the people of Zimbabwe. Their President has told them clearly what he thinks of the UK Government and their view of his policies. For us to withdraw from programmes that are trying to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS—in a country where one in four of the adult population has the infection—would do nothing to hurt President Mugabe. We have that problem in many other badly governed countries. To withdraw completely would not help those who are being oppressed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of what is taking place in Zimbabwe, but to withdraw from preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS and the provision of water and sanitation to very poor people would not hurt President Mugabe.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Dr. George Turner: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I went to the Women's Institute, where I had an interesting exchange with some of its members. I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.

Dr. Turner: I am sure that I speak for the whole House if I first briefly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his family on their newest arrival. We all wish them well.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that during his short absence political debate has returned to the old battleground of opportunities, for the many or the few, with the Tories committed—as ever—to the few. Does my right hon. Friend agree that although much has been done, there are too many barriers preventing too many people from achieving their full potential and will he commit his Government to ensuring that they may do so?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend and, what is more, I am delighted to see today that teaching applications are now up 30 per cent. That is a direct result of the measures that the Government have taken and, along with the best ever literacy and numeracy results this country has seen, it shows that, slowly but surely, we are getting the education system right.

Mr. William Hague: I very much join in the personal congratulations to the Prime Minister and his wife, and I very much welcome him back to the Floor of the House of Commons. We all know how difficult it must have been, with sleepless nights, a lot of noise and a refusal to settle down, and that was just the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it not a shame that the Chancellor reignited class war, plunged the Government into a complete shambles, made statements that he could not then back up, and exposed a whole catalogue of hypocrisy at the heart of new Labour? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, as he says he does, is he prepared to repeat the assertions made by the Chancellor that Oxford admissions are scandalous and based on the old school tie?

The Prime Minister: It is only the Tories who could be satisfied with the numbers of children going from state schools to universities. Let me quote from the Sutton Trust's report on Monday. It said that children from independent schools are 25 times more likely to enter a top university than those from a lower social class or living in poverty. The Conservatives are happy with that situation: we believe that it has to change.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister knows all about going to university from independent schools, but it looks like the Chancellor is being hung out to dry. Should not Ministers be helping universities bring in students from all backgrounds by raising the standards of schools, rather than denouncing university admissions departments out of ignorance and spite? Does not this whole affair tell us more about the internal politics of the Labour party than the Government's approach? Has it not occurred to the Prime Minister that when the Chancellor whinges about public schoolboys getting the top jobs, he is not just talking about Oxford university? If the Prime Minister agrees with the Chancellor, is he prepared to use the same words as Chancellor about this matter?

The Prime Minister: First, we are investing more money to help recruit and retain the brightest students everywhere, but the issue is surely how we increase the level and quality of state education in this country. We are raising education spending as a proportion of our national income, whereas the Leader of the Opposition would cut education spending. Interruption.] Well, I shall give the figures. In the two years when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Conservative Cabinet, education spending as a


proportion of national income fell. Under this Government, it has risen. Who cares more about state education—the people increasing spending, or the person who cut it?

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has been asked twice to agree with the Chancellor, and twice he has hung the Chancellor out to dry. Is not the real lesson that this Government say one thing and do another? Have they not now taken hypocrisy in government to a new extreme? The Leader of the House of Lords says that her fee-paying school was a pretty standard grammar school. The Government criticise people who go to Oxford from private schools, even though their leader did so himself. Ministers attack privilege as they leave their ninth bathroom on their way to their third home in their second Jaguar.
However many times the Prime Minister relaunches this Government, is it not now clear that they are happy to use opportunity and privilege for themselves, while trying to deny it to others?

The Prime Minister: We do not have to talk about theory, we can talk about the record—of the Conservative Government when they were in power, and of this Government. Who put 3 million people on the dole? The Tories. Who doubled homelessness? The Tories. Who trebled child poverty? The Tories. Who doubled crime? The Tories. Who doubled the national debt? The Tories. [Interruption.] They do not like the facts, do they?
We are the Government who have put a million extra people into work, who have cut the national debt, who are investing £6 billion in school buildings, who are delivering literacy and numeracy to people. We are the Government who have introduced the minimum wage, the new deal and the working families tax credit.
The Leader of the Opposition has spoken about how the liberal elite has wrecked education in this country, but a 21-year-old will have spent every year of his or her education under a Tory Government. It is not a liberal elite that has wrecked education in this country. It is a Tory Government.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: With reference, for a change, to the euro currency, may I tempt my right hon. Friend to go just a little further than he has done previously? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is successful with his five economic tests and economic convergence, will my right hon. Friend recommend entry to the euro to the British people?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot tempt me to go further than the policy that the Government have set out, but I will, of course, restate it. In principle, we are in favour of joining a successful single currency, but in practice the economic conditions have to be met. What would be absolute folly would be for this country to rule out the possibility of joining the euro even if it were in our economic interests to do so.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In adding my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister, may I welcome him back to Prime Minister's

Question Time? After what he was subjected to at this morning's Women's Institute performance, it must seem a warm and comfortable experience.
Mention has been made of access to higher and further education. Given the trends that are being revealed, does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the Scottish Executive abolished tuition fees, so that more Scottish students can go to Scottish universities?

The Prime Minister: Such decisions are entirely up to the Scottish Executive: that is the point of devolution. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not regret changing the system here. The latest figures indicate that 40 per cent. of families in this country are exempt from tuition fees. In the end, the only way that we were able to get the numbers of people going into university away from the old cap applied under the Tories was to change the basis of student finance. In doing so, we followed the all-party Dearing committee report. It is completely absurd for political parties who joined in that report to deny its implementation.

Madam Speaker: Mr. Tam Dalyell.

Mr. Kennedy: rose—

Madam Speaker: No, I am sorry—your second question, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Kennedy: I consider this one a top-up, Madam Speaker. Are the Government doing any research into the fact that the figures show that the number of applications from Scottish students wanting to go to Scottish universities is up, and the number of applications from English and Welsh students wanting to attend universities is on the slide? Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that? Is it completely unconnected with the imposition of tuition fees? If we are really about opportunity, would not that be the opportunity to concentrate on, rather than the opportunism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: No, in fact, enrolment of school leavers in English universities is up, not down. It is important to recognise that if we are to expand university education, we will, like virtually every country around the world, have to have a balance. We are actually putting more money into higher education and universities, but if we want to invest properly in the facilities of those universities, and increase the numbers available to go to university, we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government made the difficult, but right, choice to reform student finance. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman: as he knows, his party can sit there promising to spend limitless amounts of money, but it never says where the money comes from.

Oral Answers to Questions — Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will hold discussions with the Governments of (a) Bahrain, (b) the United Arab Emirates, (c) Saudi Arabia, (d) Iran and (e) Turkey on the future of UN sanctions against Iraq.

The Prime Minister: We maintain regular contacts with all these Governments on a wide range of issues, including the UN sanctions regime against Iraq.

Mr. Dalyell: As four of the countries mentioned in the question have already sent embassies to Baghdad; as the Government of Italy have sent an embassy to Baghdad since the question was tabled; and as even the Saudis are extremely ambivalent about the Qatar proposals, has not the time come to reflect on whether the policy of sanctions is not counter-productive?

The Prime Minister: Security Council resolution 1284, as my hon. Friend knows, is a way forward that would allow us to get to the point of suspending sanctions. However, that can be done only if Iraq complies with the international community's demands to halt the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction.
In respect of humanitarian aid, as I have said to my hon. Friend many times, Iraq has the ability to get as much of that aid as it wants and to use it for its people and for medicines and medical facilities, but it is not choosing to do so. So we have to keep up the pressure for Iraq to come into line with the Security Council resolutions. Of course we feel for the humanitarian suffering in Iraq, but the only way of making sure that we do not allow Saddam Hussein to use that as a bargaining counter to start developing these weapons again is to stick to the principles that the UN set out.

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Christopher Gill: As a former naval person, I am very concerned to learn that the interval between ordering new warships for the Royal Navy is longer now than since the reign of Henry VIII. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity of telling the House why, since he came to power more than three years ago, not one new warship has been ordered for Royal Navy?

The Prime Minister: We have, in fact, a very full procurement programme, but I do not think that we should take any lessons from a political party that cut defence spending by 30 per cent. It is this Government who are increasing the procurement programme.

Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents and the many ex-service men in this country that the Hollywood film "U-571", which portrays American sailors retrieving the Enigma machine and codes, is an affront to the memory of the British sailors who lost their lives in this action? I refer in particular to Lieutenant Tony Fasson and Tamworth-born Colin Grazier. They were both awarded the George medal posthumously, and were both local heroes.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend says. The two people he mentioned fought with great distinction and bravery; of course, we honour their memory. We hope that people realise that those were people who, in many cases, sacrificed their lives in order that this country remained free.

Mr. David Amess: While the Prime Minister was away, did he have the opportunity to study the election results in Basildon—[Interruption.]—where Labour lost overall control, or in Southend where every Labour candidate lost? If he did not have time to do that, was he able to study the remarks of his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and of his hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—[Interruption.] They can be summed up by his noble Friend, Lord Sawyer who said that the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order—[Interruption.] Order. Mr. Amess will be heard.

Mr. Amess: If the Prime Minister could not take in the election results, can he take in the remarks of his right hon. and hon. Friends, summed up by the noble Lord Sawyer, who said that the right hon. Gentleman was remote and completely out of touch, unlike the noble Baroness Thatcher. Before the Prime Minister looks for an answer in the book in front of him, what is his answer to the senior citizen who came to my surgery on Friday and said that the right hon. Gentleman's party is interested only in young people and could not care less about the elderly?

The Prime Minister: Was that a planted question?
I think that the local election results the hon. Gentleman studied were those in Basildon and that is why he ran off to Southend. Frankly, on the results of the general election, that was the wisest judgment he ever made.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: When does my right hon. Friend expect fox hunting to be banned?

The Prime Minister: The Burns report will be published next week. The Home Secretary will make a statement and I am sure that the House will want to make its views known then.

Mr. William Hague: Statistics in the past week show that health service waiting lists are up by 16,000 and that the number of new general practitioners joining the NHS is at its lowest for a decade. Last week, the Government also sent out 13 million survey forms, saying that they did not know how to run the national health service and would someone please let them know. Those forms were meant to be in on Monday. What proportion of the 13 million have been returned?

The Prime Minister: Waiting lists are 100,000 below the level we inherited when we came into office. There are almost 4,000 extra doctors. It is perfectly sensible to consult people on the future of the health service. We will publish a plan in July, which will allow us to use the huge amount of extra money the Chancellor put into the health service.

Mr. Hague: The closing date was 5 June—two days ago. The Prime Minister is obviously embarrassed, because he talks about a first-class health service, but the Government could not deliver a second-class letter. Was that not a costly public relations exercise? Is it not true


that the money should have been spent on operations? Was it not another example of the distorted priorities that doctors have complained about since the right hon. Gentleman came into office?
This morning, the Prime Minister gave a speech and received the rare honour of a slow handclap from members of the Women's Institute. He has had three hours to think about that. Why does he think it happened?

The Prime Minister: On health service funding—just to get it right for the right hon. Gentleman—whereas, when we took office, that funding was actually falling as a proportion of national income, it has now risen. No one should ever forget that he is committed to cutting the amount of health spending that the Chancellor has put in.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister clearly has no idea why it happened and it is a mark of an out-of-touch Prime Minister that he does not know why he is out of touch. He is now totally out of touch with what is happening in the health service where more consultants are taking early retirement than ever before, more managers are leaving, fewer doctors are joining and 400,000 people are on a waiting list for a waiting list. This is a Government of gimmicks, empty words, empty gestures and public relations exercises. They are no longer even competent at them. Have we not seen in the past few weeks that the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned middle Britain and that middle Britain is abandoning him?

The Prime Minister: Are 5,000 more nurses in the health service an empty gesture? There are 4,000 more doctors and every single accident and emergency department in the country will be refurbished if it wants it. There are 100,000 fewer people on the waiting lists and there has been the largest ever increase in health spending. People remember the national health service as it was under the Tories and what is more they now know that if the right hon. Gentleman's party came back to power, because of his plans on private health, £1 billion would be taken out of the health service tomorrow. Ours are the priorities that middle Britain wants.

Ms Julia Drown: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the support that the House gave last month to raising the age of recruitment to the armed forces from 16 to 18? In the light of the vote, will he undertake to reconsider the issue with a view to bringing UK practice into line with that of our European partners?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend the assurance that she wants. We have had a long tradition in this country of tying the age at which people go into the armed forces to the school-leaving age. Many of the people who join before the age of 18 are among those who stay on longest in the armed forces. I understand the arguments, but I am not convinced by them.

Mr. Stephen Day: Why does the Prime Minister disagree with those 63 per cent. of his constituents in Sedgefield who oppose abolishing the pound and joining the euro? When will he have the

courage to tell them the answer, because it is manifestly obvious that he does not have the courage to tell the House?

The Prime Minister: Neither my constituents nor, indeed, any of our constituents have been asked to join the euro now. The question is whether we should rule it out for the next Parliament. We are the party that is offering people a referendum so that they have a choice. If we recommend joining the euro, people will have a choice. However, the Conservative party would take that choice away from them. The constituents of mine to whom I talk would prefer to have the choice.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Skelmersdale in my constituency has one of the country's lowest rates of entry into our universities? That is not the result of a lack of talent, but the result of a lack of tradition of entry into higher education, and a whole range of social obstacles. Nevertheless, the citizens there help to finance the universities through their taxes and particularly the extra funding that Oxford and Cambridge receive from the taxpayer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a duty of the Government to ensure that the citizens of Skelmersdale and millions like them have an equal opportunity to get into our universities and perhaps especially our most prestigious universities? Does he further agree that, if the Leader of the Opposition is correct and a class war is brewing, the citizens of Skelmersdale and the millions like them should win it?

The Prime Minister: It is extraordinary that the Conservatives should want to tolerate such a situation. May I give another fact from the Sutton report? Some 65 per cent. of those getting three A grades at A-level are from state schools , but they make up only 53 per cent. of the intake at the top universities. I should have thought that it was sensible to say that we all have a responsibility: the schools to encourage their pupils, the universities to go out to try to draw in a larger number of people, and us, as a Government, to fund education properly. That is why we are the party of opportunity for all and the Conservatives are the party of the few.

Mr. Peter Luff: The Prime Minister has bizarrely claimed that abolishing the historic right to trial by jury for hundreds of offences is a modernising measure. Will he now confirm—as the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) was forced to do in Committee yesterday—that the measure's real purpose is to save the Treasury money because most convicted criminals will serve much shorter prison sentences that will be imposed by magistrates rather than by Crown courts?

The Prime Minister: I said that it will allow us to save money, which is a good thing as it allows us to put money into the criminal justice system. It was recommended by a royal commission and the Lord Chief Justice said that it was right. Scotland has not done it for ages, and has not experienced any of the problems that have been raised. Finally, at the moment, the system is being abused. It is no good Conservatives touring the country with the piddling little measures that the right hon. Member for


Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is going on about when they are not prepared to take on the major issues that will clean up the criminal justice system. Unless we are prepared to take measures against drug dealers and abusers of criminal justice, the criminal issue will never be dealt with properly.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite the overall strength of the economy, the textile sector has suffered over the past few years? Will he join me in welcoming the £10 million in aid that was announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and ensure that that is not the end of the story but the first step in strengthening that industry, which has a proud future in our economy?

The Prime Minister: It is important to help the textile industry through a great period of restructuring and change. There is no doubt that the high level of sterling has caused it particular problems. However, in future, it must increase productivity, and produce goods with higher value added. The purpose of the money and programme that we are introducing is to try to help it do that and is the best way of guaranteeing the security of people's jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ministerial Visits

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): If he will visit west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly in the St. Ives constituency.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. George: That is a pity because as I am sure the Prime Minister knows Cornwall has a distinctive culture and identity that allows it to play a full part in the celebration of diversity here and in the wider world. Has he heard yesterday's truly shocking news from Marazion in my constituency? It is alleged that a group of youths abused, physically and racially, a visiting party of young people from Berlin. Does the Prime Minister agree that, if certain members of the political elite in the Chamber abuse their privilege by appealing to base instincts and artfully blaming asylum seekers, blaming Europe and blaming foreigners at every opportunity it is little wonder that we find in Marazion, as elsewhere, that we reap what we sow.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. Of course, we condemn that attack and detest xenophobic racism of any

sort. We are glad and proud to be a country that welcomes people from abroad and engages in proper cultural ties with other countries. I hope that we all welcome that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Engagements

Mr. Paul Goggins: Is not one of the Government's most significant achievements the fact that, since May 1997, the number of people forced to depend on income support and job seeker's allowance has fallen by no less than 1 million? Does the Prime Minister agree that when the Tories talk about scrapping the new deal they reveal that they have learned nothing from the tragedy of unemployment that they created?

The Prime Minister: Unemployment is at its lowest level for 20 years or more. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say that it would have fallen anyway. However, 250,000 jobs have been created through the new deal, which the Tories are committed to scrapping. As a result of 1 million extra jobs, there has been an £8 billion saving on welfare during this Parliament. The economic policy of reducing unemployment and the social policy of spending more on schools and hospitals therefore go together.

Mr. William Cash: On the fundamental charter of rights, will the Prime Minister veto any proposal that those rights should be made binding and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court? Will he restate that it is intended to be no more than a political showcase, as he said in a previous Question Time? Does he agree with the Minister of State responsible for European issues that proposals on those rights deal only with existing rights and will not amend anything in future?

The Prime Minister: They are not legally binding rights and I reiterate entirely what I have said to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber and elsewhere. I would have hoped that he and his colleagues would welcome the fact that we are to set up in a charter the basic rights of people in Europe. It is unfortunate that, when the notion of civil and democratic rights comes from Europe, that affronts the Conservative party.
Given that the hon. Gentleman has been talking about backsliding in the Conservative party on the issue of Europe, I hope very much that that is the position. I hope also that the party finally comes to its senses and realises that the future of this country lies in its being a key player in the major strategic alliance on its doorstep and not, as many Tories want, in getting us out of Europe, with enormous damage to British jobs, industry and investment.

Point of Order

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that on several occasions in the House I have raised the question of a private cosmetic surgeon named David Charles Herbert. Eighty written complaints have been made against him and sent to the General Medical Council. This surgeon continues to operate. I checked today, and he is operating at least twice a week in two hospitals.
The complaints are extremely serious. The GMC tells me that there is no legislation that allows it to suspend this man from his work, yet he continues to butcher women throughout the country. A ministerial statement should be made on this issue and the man should not continue to operate. The GMC should be given powers to suspend him. Instead, it has invited him for professional assessment.

Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Lady has raised the issue on previous occasions. Indeed, she did so only yesterday with the Secretary of State for Health. I am not aware that a Minister is seeking to make a statement. If the hon. Lady would like to use her ingenuity and to read the Standing Orders, she may find that there are methods by which she can make an application that will allow her to express her views, and she may get a response. I leave the matter to her.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment)

Ms Debra Shipley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issues concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which, although a relatively recent Act, is in urgent need of amendment.
The Act came to my attention due to the plight of one of my constituents, Mrs. Marion Jordan, and her baby son, Daniel. Mr. and Mrs. Jordan were a happy newly married couple who wanted a family. Sadly, Mr. Jordan was diagnosed to be seriously ill with cancer. Hoping that treatment would help, and mindful of the devastating effects of some cancer treatments on fertility, Mr. and Mrs. Jordan decided to preserve a sample of Mr. Jordan's sperm, so that it could be used subsequently to conceive their much-wanted child. All this was carried out legally and professionally, and it is fully documented.
Mr. Jordan gave full consent for his sperm to be used by his wife to conceive his child. It is a child that they wanted, planned for and, indeed, longed for. Sadly, Mr. Jordan died. Mrs. Jordan went ahead and underwent IVF treatment, which happily resulted in a beautiful, healthy baby boy. By now, Mrs. Jordan had undergone the terrible trauma of losing her husband, but she had the great consolation that she had his son, Daniel.
Then her administrative troubles began. On going to register the birth of baby Daniel, Mrs. Jordan was distressed to discover that she was prevented from registering her deceased husband as the father of his own child. It is a shocking fact that the 1990 Act effectively makes baby Daniel illegitimate. That has to be wrong. This baby is a much-wanted child of whom his parents dreamed together. His mother is Marion Jordan, and there is documentary evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that David Jordan was his father. Yet the law provides that, because Mr. Jordan died prior to conception, he cannot be named on baby Daniel's birth certificate. Surely, no hon. Member who seriously believes in strengthening the family could possibly think that that is a sustainable position.
The law must be changed. In a letter to me dated November 1999, the head of the births and deaths branch of the General Register Office stated:
Section 28(6) of the Act provides that where the sperm of a man is used after his death he is not to be treated as the father of the child.
He added in the same letter that, in 1997, the Department of Health commissioned Professor Sheila McClean of Glasgow university to review the 1990 Act and that, in commenting on the review, the office of births and deaths said that it would welcome a change to the Act to allow the father's particulars to be recorded where a widow conceives her husband's child after his death.
The results of that review were published in July 1998. On 3 December 1998, in a written reply to a parliamentary question, the then the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), welcomed the report and stated that the Government


would seek public and professional views on its recommendations. That process was, she said, to be completed by April 1999. That Minister has since moved to another Department.
In November 1999, I contacted the present Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), hoping for a constructive outcome to the unhappy situation that my constituent, Marion Jordan and her then tiny new-born baby, were in. In December 1999, a whole year after the first ministerial response, the new Minister told me that she expected
to be able to make an announcement shortly on Professor McClean's recommendations, including our views on any possible amendments to the 1990 Act.
She added that the report raised concerns surrounding issues of inheritance. Inheritance issues, although legally important to address, are in this instance something of a red herring.
There has been no announcement from the Minister on the subject, although, on 26 January, her office said that an announcement would be made in four to six weeks. We are now not six weeks but six months further on and my constituent is still unable to register her late husband as the father of their child. Colleagues with constituents who are similarly and cruelly stranded in that legislative limbo-land have contacted me. I want to see action for these loved and wanted children.
My Bill proposes a simple amendment to the 1990 Act with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously, so that mothers such as Marion Jordan need never again suffer the double blow of losing a partner and having him legally denied as the parent of their child. As Professor McClean stated in her review:
The terms of s.28 of the 1990 Act make it clear that a child conceived posthumously is legally fatherless. Now, it might be thought that by taking the trouble to make a written statement of intent concerning the use of gametes after death, the man is intending that the child should be regarded as his.

She added:
Whilst the current legislation permits the child access to certain information about, for example, genetic provenance, it also expressly precludes the child from having a father for legal purposes.
It is ridiculous. Indeed, such legal status might be the child's right under the 1979 United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Article 2.1 states:
Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
Professor McClean therefore recommends amendment of section 28(6), which is exactly what my Bill seeks to do.
Professor McClean addressed the question of inheritance issues, which was raised as the problematic area by the present Minister. The professor recommends that the law should not be amended to secure inheritance rights of a child conceived after the death of its father—and thus that red herring is speedily dispatched.
The few simple amendments that I propose would mean a lot to the families who have had so much grief to deal with. I hope that my colleagues will support the Bill's passage into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Debra Shipley, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Simon Burns, Jackie Ballard, Barbara Follett, Mr. Geraint Davies, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Ms Christine Russell.

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (AMENDMENT)

Ms Debra Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 with regard to the status of the father of a child conceived posthumously: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 June, and to be printed [Bill 138].

Opposition Day

[12Th ALLOTTED DAY]

Equal Opportunities in Britain

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was being simplistic and divisive in attacking the admissions procedure of Oxford University on the basis of a single, individual case; regrets the lack of action by the Government to promote freedom and opportunity for all the people of the United Kingdom; and calls on the Government to match its rhetoric with action, by removing government obstacles to the less well-off entering university, significantly increasing investment in education, taking those on low incomes out of income tax, tackling pensioner poverty, improving the quality of healthcare for all, and ensuring access to basic services in both rural and urban communities.
I initiate the debate against the backdrop, as we saw in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon and have seen even more so outside the Chamber lately, of some intriguing arguments beginning to develop among those who are against one set of elites and those who are against another. Many of the arguments are bogus. Let us hope that this afternoon we can point to some of the errors that may arise in politics when the specific is applied to the general.
It is invariably a mistake to enter into gesture politics, as we are all tempted to do from time to time. It is certainly a mistake for senior politicians to take a specific example and to generalise from it. That was one of the great mistakes that the leader of the Conservative party made recently over the Tony Martin case. Equally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stands accused of taking a specific issue and overgeneralising it, in the Laura Spence case. That results in bad attitudes and, if legislation were ever to flow from it, worse laws.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who has been particularly prolific over the past week in respect of the Laura Spence case, put the issue well when he said that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer tries to raise a principle on the back of one specific case, he must answer the question on which he remains completely silent: which of the other candidates should have been turned down? Not to answer that question is gesture politics of the worst kind.
What matters is reality. Much of what the Government are saying—and to some extent the Conservatives as well, in so far as they intrude upon reality these days—is not what real life is about. I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon about tuition fees. Applications are up in Scotland from Scottish students, and down in Wales and England from Welsh and English students. The Prime Minister answered very carefully. He did not answer the question. He said that enrolments were up. As the Minister knows, applications and enrolments are two entirely different things in the tertiary education sector.
Speaking as a Scot, I welcome the fact that Scotland has a different policy, which is advantageous compared with that in England and Wales. However, I do not

welcome the fact that the Government will not acknowledge the deficiencies of their policy on a United Kingdom basis. I hope that the change in policy that was effected in the Scottish Parliament will provide a beacon for a policy change in respect of education in England and Wales.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We in Wales are jealous of the Scottish Parliament's ability to enact such legislation; we would very much like to do that. I hope that the Government hear the right hon. Gentleman's encouraging words. Does he agree that, among the red herrings that have been trawled around, the needs of thousands of ordinary children are forgotten? That applies especially to those who may not go to university, but cannot get the resources to train in further education colleges.

Mr. Kennedy: In the spirit of celtic comradeship, may I say that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and that the Liberal Democrats wish that the Welsh Assembly had the legislative capacity to make the sort of decision that was made in Edinburgh? I hope that that case will be advanced in due course. I endorse the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Amid all the heat that the Chancellor's comments generated and the debate that they sparked, very little light has been shed on educational reality.
I have a copy of a letter, which was written to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) by a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). The writer considers student funding in general and tuition fees in particular. The letter reflects reality, as opposed to the headlines, and the news management that the Government have attempted. I have the student's permission to quote the letter. It states:
My opposition and "outrage" stems from the fact that the proposals as leaked in the recent Russell Group report … would mean that I couldn't afford to go to Oxford university. I came from a state comprehensive and was the first person from my school EVER to get a place at Oxbridge. My Dad is a fireman and my Mum works with disabled kids. They are typical middle class people, not affluent, but not too hard up. If they are expected to pay £5,000 per year for my university education, simply because I'm clever enough to get a place at Oxford, they cannot afford to do so.
That is the social reality in this country.
The Government's approach, especially to opportunity in higher and tertiary education, has been grossly deficient. They have also failed to invest adequately in the education system in general. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will want to concentrate on that issue. I cannot cover every item in our admittedly wide-ranging motion. Education and social opportunity is essential and I do not apologise for focusing on that to a large extent.
The second issue that we want to consider is the national health service. The Government have embarked on a fundamental rethink of the NHS. That was not promised or flagged up three years ago. The rhetoric at the end of the general election campaign stressed that people had a week in which to save the NHS by voting Labour, and that any other outcome would mean the demise of the NHS. The health service is not in that parlous state, thank God, but it is in deep difficulty, and staff morale is low; there is considerable disillusionment.
The Prime Minister has embarked on his great review. I do not know about the Minister's experience, or that of the Prime Minister, but, as a Member of Parliament who has visited many hospitals up and down the country in the past 17 years, the one persistent and consistent comment that I heard from health service staff is that they need more money, and that the last thing they need is politicians reorganising them yet again. Every Government fall prey to the temptation of reorganisation because they are unwilling to confront themselves or the tax-paying public with the harsh reality that if we want a better health service, we must be prepared to dig deeper in our pockets to provide it. That is where the political priority should lie, not in yet another bureaucratic, politically motivated and orchestrated reorganisation.
I do not believe that NHS staff are encouraged by the thought that yet another set of political masters will tear up the plant to see how it is growing; they want that plant to be better tended in the first place. That is how the funding priorities should have been set in the first half of this Parliament. We said so before, during and after the general election.

Mr. Phil Willis: We will say it at the next election.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree with my hon. Friend; we will say it at the next election, and we have been proved comprehensively correct.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much he welcomes today's Mental Health Alliance lobby of Parliament? Will he join me in regretting that, in all 11 pages of the major speech that the Secretary of State for Health made yesterday, there was no reference to users of mental health services, their carers or mental health staff?

Mr. Kennedy: I welcome that lobby, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have had discussions with those involved today. That oversight is certainly significant and sad. I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to put it on the parliamentary record will stop any such deficiency occurring in future. I very much agree with him.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about NHS resources—I am delighted that substantial extra resources will be provided during the next three years—I am surprised that he thinks that fundamental reform is not needed. Is he happy about the fact that part-time consultants in the NHS, especially orthopaedic surgeons, have long waiting lists and that people have to wait perhaps a year for hip operations that could be carried out next week if they went private and paid for them?

Mr. Kennedy: My criticism of further reform at this stage is that many of the institutional and structural issues that the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister will address are the result of insufficient funding during the lifetime of this Parliament. That is criticism No. 1. Criticism No. 2 is that, if we want to reform the delivery of health services at community level to make them more accountable and efficient—no hon. Member would be

against that principle—two things must be done. First, managers must be allowed to manage; the Government must not spend their time interfering politically. Secondly, managers must be set budgets that allow them to plan.
Every year, the Government of the day suddenly announce—pre-Christmas or post-new year—extra cash to help solve whatever perceived problems arise during the winter months. We saw that in classic form with this year's flu epidemic. We all know that that happens; it is a feature of the weather and of demography. NHS managers tell us that the money is welcome and that, if only they had known that they would get it eight, 10 or 12 months ago, they could have deployed it far more efficiently and effectively. The Government need to deal with that, not with what one suspects is a high-profile, well news-managed health inquiry, chaired by the Prime Minister, which no doubt will be unveiled in glitzy fashion at No. 10 Downing street, but will not reach those whom it is intended to assist. That is the case that we are making. It is an issue of opportunity that is close to the hearts of Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kennedy: I shall certainly do so, although I want to make progress.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. He seems to suggest simply that more money is required, not modernisation or reform. Has he read the Public Accounts Committee report, which shows enormous variation in the unit cost of standard procedures such as hip operations, and in efficiency and performance? The Government are introducing benchmarking of costs and outputs to provide more cost-effective and consistent standards of health across the country, rather than simply throwing more and more money at what is often mismanagement and bad practice. Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome that?

Mr. Kennedy: Again, we have absolutely no objection to the most cost-effective delivery of health care in the country, which must be in everyone's interest. However—I am not in any way undermining the work of the Public Accounts Committee—it must be recognised that the delivery of health care in my part of the country bears hardly any relation to the delivery of health care in, say, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) in terms of, for instance, geography, demography and other demands.
I often feel that the indices and formulae that are used do not take adequate account of geographical disparities. That has an impact not just on health but on the delivery of education, and on many other things.
One group which, in terms of "Opportunity Britain", must feel that they are being the most denied under the present Government are pensioners. They are some of the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society. Let me quote to the Minister the last Labour manifesto, in which Labour pledged that pensioners would
share in the increasing prosperity of the nation.
After three years of Labour Government, however, the percentage of national income going to pensioners has declined. That is a statement of fact.
Insult has been added to injury by the increase of 75p in the basic state pension. Lifetime savings of just £8,000 bar 600,000 pensioners from entitlement to income support, although their income is lower than £75 a week. Up to 700,000 pensioners who are entitled to claim income support fail to do so.
In 1998–99, there were 50,000 "excess winter deaths"—a chilling phrase—most among elderly people. That is the highest figure for many years, and is substantially higher than the figures in any comparable western country.
As a people, we should be ashamed of such statistics. There must be a substantial increase in the amount given to pensioners, and the comprehensive spending review will provide a big opportunity. Any increase should be loaded in favour of the oldest and poorest pensioners, who all too often form the same group.
I could mention many other issues, but there is not enough time for me to do so. Let me say a word about one of the most dispiriting aspects of national political dialogue. I refer to the increasing sense that there is a difference between urban Britain and rural Britain. There is no such difference. A lack of opportunity in rural Britain may take a different form from a lack of opportunity in urban Britain, but a lack of opportunity in either should be something that a Parliament is not prepared to tolerate. We are seeing too much of it.
In rural Britain in particular, the extent of deprivation and social exclusion is all too often disguised. That applies as much to the fate of the local post office as to the lack of access to decent transport. It impacts on the single mother as much it impacts on the pensioner. The Government are not doing enough, and we want more to be done. We also want aspirations and anxieties to be met in the context of the incidence of crime, and the perception and fear of crime. Before the election, it was a case of "Vote for us; more bobbies on the beat". Three years after the election—in which enough people voted for the Government—there are thousands fewer police to be deployed in our rural and urban communities. Those are the facts, and they need to be exposed.
The Government have done much that is good, and the Liberal Democrats have said that. As the Minister knows, we are frequently criticised by others—members of the Conservative party and the media—when we do so, but if we think that the Government are trying to do the right thing, why should we not say so? That is an example of sane, rational, constructive politics. What is most disappointing, however, is that although they have a benign economic scenario, a thumping House of Commons majority, a so-called official Opposition who have shown no signs of getting their act together over the first three years of the Parliament—

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Dream on.

Mr. Kennedy: The few of them who are here are dignified and distinguished representatives of a dwindling band.
Despite having all that in their favour, the Government have a poverty of ambition. What could, and should, they have done on the social justice agenda? What could, and should, they have done to make life better for pensioners?

What could, and should, they have done to improve our national health service? What could, and should, they have done to improve the lot of those in education in general and the tertiary system in particular?
I want us to be ambitious about our politics. The Liberal Democrats are ambitious, and we will make the case for greater opportunity—a case that finds no resonant echo in the Conservative party, still less the Government of the country.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'believes that true opportunity for all requires that access to higher education should be based on merit not background; welcomes the measures the Government has implemented to widen access as part of the record increase in education spending of 8 per cent. in real terms in this year alone; and welcomes the many initiatives taken to help those in society whose needs are greatest, including an extra £950 a year for older pensioners on low incomes and a record increase in NHS spending of an extra £2 billion this year, plus 6.1 per cent. average growth year on year until 2004.'.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) was kind enough to mention that his motion covers a wide range of subjects. Perhaps one or two matters of world interest are not covered in it—

Mr. Charles Kennedy: They are for the second motion.

Mr. Wicks: Indeed. One of my colleagues said that the motion had all the hallmarks of being written on the back of an envelope; I thought that the back of a serviette was more likely. Despite that remark, I shall treat the subject of the debate seriously.
Despite the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Government, some, though not all, of which I can address, I acknowledge that my party and his have in many respects shared in the radical tradition and ambition of the past century. Long before new Labour—indeed, 100 years or so before—there came the new Liberals, following the great schism at the end of the 19th century between the welfare Liberals and the market Liberals.
In spite of the many differences between us—I shall not be wholly conciliatory—there is a sense in which we have all been concerned about how to attack injustice and pursue a just society. That has led us to discuss issues concerning the right balance between economic prosperity and fairness and between the values of equality and liberty. It was a great liberal—Hobhouse—who reminded us in 1911:
Liberty without equality is a name of noble sound and squalid result.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about some of our universities lacked the right balance between those two important values.
We have been concerned about citizenship and the balance to be struck between rights and duties. The unjust society—the motion is about justice—has been described in many ways across epochs. It varies from era to era in terms of its determinant causes and characteristics, but I always think—I say this not just to be conciliatory—that the best portrayal of injustice is still that from Sir William


Beveridge, a great Liberal, in his report of 1942. Sir William talked about the challenge facing our country after the second world war. In a wartime speech, he said:
Reconstruction has many sides, international and domestic. On the domestic side, one can define its aims best by naming five giant evils to be destroyed: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.
That was the agenda successfully confronted in many ways by the Attlee Government in 1945.
Much has changed in the 50 to 60 years since then. Many substantial improvements have been made in the life chances of our people, not least in their life expectancy. There is much to applaud, but, when the Government came to power in 1997, the socio-economic context was depressingly familiar in terms of rampant inequality.
There was a real sense in which Beveridge's five giants, well known in the 1940s and before the war, still stalked the land. There was want—one in three babies were born into poverty. Disease, sickness and mortality correlated with social and economic circumstance. There was ignorance—one in four or five of our adults were lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills. There was squalor—neighbourhoods were grim and desolate. There was also idleness, which is, of course, the experience of mass unemployment, with one in five households having no adult in work. We were familiar with that when we came to power, and we are seeking to deal with that agenda.
All five of those Beveridge giants are significant. All of them are interconnected. One cannot be overcome on its own—we need to overcome all of them. The connections include the fact that one third of adults without skills are on benefits. By contrast, those who have good GCSEs are able to increase their earnings by 40 per cent., compared with those who lack any qualifications. That is why, in addressing these issues, we need comprehensive strategies.
We need joined-up government. We also need the important work of the social exclusion unit, and projects such as sure start that bring together health, education and other services to help families with children in the early years. We need the Connexions service, for 13 to 19-year-olds, which involves the modern development of careers and the youth service, cutting across Departments and involving a range of professionals.
I shall focus on three of the giants that I mentioned: idleness, want and ignorance. I shall not cover all the points raised by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West, but I want to examine some of the aspects that he mentioned—employment, social security and education. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Who has the telephone? Turn it off, please.

Mr. Wicks: Madam Speaker, I am sure that it was not William Beveridge telephoning to correct my quotation. I can assure you that it was accurate in every detail.
I think that the starting point for our social policy has to be a strong economy and jobs. That is why we were not impressed by what I think many people would regard as the "pay now, probably cut later" economics of the Liberal Democrats. We had to plan for the long term, not the quick headline. Our central economic objective is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. We need to lock in economic stability as a platform for sustainable growth.
The approach is working, most notably in respect of jobs. I think many of us would regard a job as the most important social security policy of all. We have a dynamic and healthy labour market, and the number of people in jobs is the highest that it has ever been, at 27.8 million. More than 900,000 more men and women are in jobs now than in May 1997 when we took office. Claimant unemployment is the lowest that it has been for 20 years. with the claimant count of unemployed men and women down to January 1980 levels.
I do not recite those statistics to be complacent. I understand that the unemployment level is still too high and that it still affects many communities. Nevertheless, I think that our record on jobs is impressive.

Mr. Kennedy: The Minister used the phrase "pay now, cut later" to describe the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics. Although we join him in rightly criticising the boom-and-bust days that preceded this Government, it is worth placing on the record the fact that, although he and his ministerial colleagues are occasionally—indeed, regularly—somewhat dismissive of our approach to economics, the central plank of the Government's economic strategy, which has created the opportunities to do so many things, was in our manifesto but not in Labour's. I am referring to operational independence for the Bank of England.

Mr. Wicks: We thought that it was right to implement that policy, and did so at the very start. I agree that it has been a very important plank of our economic policy. What was wholly missing from the right hon. Gentleman's speech today was any notion at all of spending commitments or spending priorities. He had a wish list, but, although it would be the wish list of many of us, I heard no ideas or commitments concerning the money that would have to be raised to implement it.
I am struck by the common sense of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), with whom I have been serving on a Standing Committee for the past few weeks. He said recently:
Simply saying that we can dip into a bottomless pit of resources is not acceptable.
It is vital that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and other Opposition Members provide basic arithmetic on spending and priorities, otherwise they offer only the economics of the playpen. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough might play a useful role in the Liberal Democrats' Front-Bench Treasury team.
In addition to increasing employment opportunities, it is a radical feature of the Government that we are doing more to make work pay. We all know the problems of dependency culture and the unemployment trap. Through a combination of the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and child benefit, we have done a great deal to enable people who are moving from benefit into work to receive a decent income. Our policies mean that, from early next year, no one with children who is in full-time work will earn less than £214 a week. That is a major step forward.

Mr. John Bercow: The Minister speaks glibly about increasing employment opportunities, just as the pre-Budget report did, but how is the creation of


employment opportunities assisted by dramatically increasing the national insurance contributions of swathes of self-employed people the length and breadth of the kingdom?

Mr. Wicks: We need to cost carefully our tax and national insurance proposals and to get the balance right between the revenue that must be raised and our spending priorities. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I both speak glibly, but the fact is that, since the Labour Government took office, 900,000 more men and women have found jobs. That is a victory for those men and women, their families and communities, and it is good news for the economy. I am not being glib; I am stating a record of achievement of which many of us who remember the horrors of mass unemployment perpetrated on this country by the Conservatives are proud.

Dr. Peter Brand: I am impressed by the list of measures that the Government have taken to help people into employment. Will the Minister examine the impact of the current cut-off for therapeutic earnings, which stands in the way of people who are recovering from or who have a history of mental illness? We have to be far more flexible if we are to enable such people to gain their rightful place in the work force and the community.

Mr. Wicks: That is why we increased the level of that cut-off in the last Budget. I accept the more general point that, to enable people with learning disabilities or other forms of disability to enter the labour market if they want to, as many do, we need to provide an array of policies and support systems, some of which will operate in the field of social security.
Although I wish I had the opportunity to do so, it is not my purpose today to address in detail the issues surrounding incomes for elderly people and pensioners. There are interesting and legitimate disagreements about the package of measures available in that respect, but I should like to state one fact: during this Parliament, we have spent an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners, which is £2.5 billion more than we would have spent had we merely linked the basic state pension to earnings.
It is legitimate to argue about the pros and cons of our strategy, but no one can deny that we are spending money on the proper needs of elderly people. We are doing that in a variety of ways, for example, by providing free television licences to those aged 75 or more, which is important and targeted support because many—although not all—of our elders in their late 70s, their 80s and 90s are housebound, living alone and dependent on their television. We have increased the winter fuel allowance and provided free eye tests for the over-60s—a piece of decent social policy of which we are proud.
I acknowledge the terrible data quoted by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West about those who have died from cold in winter. Early in my career, I participated in a major research study into that topic, and I am proud to be able to claim to have written the first major study of the old and cold problem. When we need to summon the energy to do better for our country, evidence that old people—still today, I acknowledge—are cold in the winter, and sometimes lethally so, is a national

disgrace. By focusing on the poorest, the home energy efficiency scheme and many other measures, we are doing our utmost to address that appalling problem in terms of pensioner incomes.

Mr. Steve Webb: The Minister is very knowledgeable about these matters. Will he clarify the Government's position on the 75p pension rise? Looking back, does he think that that was the right or the wrong thing to do?

Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman and I share an academic background in social security. These are important matters and there are differences of opinion. Our priority as a Government has been to focus support on the poorest elderly people. We are doing that in different ways: partly through the income support system, with the minimum income guarantee, and partly through free television licences, a measure that focuses on the very important group of people over the age of 75. I think that that is the right priority and the right thing to do.
I repeat the fact that, over this Parliament, we shall be spending more on elderly people, particularly the poorest—many women in those elderly groups never had an occupational pension, have few savings and have been widowed—than we would have spent if we had simply index-linked the pension to wages. There is legitimate discussion about that, but no one can say that we are not spending proper amounts of money.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Wicks: I want to talk about another subject in which I am interested—education—but I am happy to give way first.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is it not a fact that the Government have not helped the very poorest pensioners, because the minimum income guarantee means nothing unless a pensioner is claiming income support? Is it not high time that our poorest pensioners who have no other income are absolved from having to claim benefits, and receive a consolidated basic pension?

Mr. Wicks: The gap between the richest and poorest pensioners increased dramatically under the previous Government.

Mr. Bercow: That is not an answer.

Mr. Wicks: That is part of our legacy.

Miss Kirkbride: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Wicks: It has a lot to do with it. In 1997, we had to look at the situation confronting us. We weighed the options very carefully. We found that, after 18 years—not least because of Mrs. Thatcher's decimation of the state earnings-related pension scheme—

Mr. Bercow: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wicks: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the attack on SERPS has nothing to do with the issue, he shows that he is approaching the social security question with a certain illiteracy.
Our judgment is that we should concentrate resources on the poorest elderly people. We are doing that in the ways that I have described. We are communicating as effectively as we can and in imaginative ways that ensure that those who are entitled to income support in old age receive it.
Although the basic priorities for our social policy are a strong economy and good jobs, much of the ability of our citizens, whatever their age, to get such jobs will depend on education, training and skills. Although that has always been so in many respects, the challenges posed by globalisation and the impact of new technologies mean that those of us who are interested in social security in the broadest sense must turn our attention to education, training and skills. That is why we have a true commitment to the notion of lifelong learning and are spending more on education.
Over this Parliament, education spending will increase by more than 16 per cent. in real terms. This year alone, following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget of a further £1 billion for education, spending on it will rise by more than 8 per cent. in real terms—the highest annual increase for more than 20 years. The right hon. Member for Ross. Skye and Inverness, West speaks as if we were not spending more on education or, for that matter, on health. The very reverse is the case.

Mr. Willis: The Minister is very selective in his statistics. Unit funding for students in further and higher education has gone down each year under this Government and is scheduled to go down right through to 2001–02.

Mr. Wicks: Unit funding for university education declined dramatically under the Conservative Government. We have rectified that because we will have no trade-off between quantity, with the increasing number of people in higher education, and quality. The hon. Gentleman is committed to further education, as I am, and knows that spending on it is at record levels. At long last we have a Government taking further education seriously, as it deserves.
Lifelong learning has to start with the early years. Some of the best preparation for our people will take place at a tender age. That is why our national child care strategy—with the development of nursery education, guaranteeing places for all four-year-olds, and the innovative sure start programme, tackling a range of issues, involving parents, and considering health, education and the family as a whole—is so important.
It is also why, despite some opposition from some forces of conservatism, our national literacy and numeracy strategy has played such an important role in our education system. Some thought that it was not necessary, but we believe that it was absolutely right and proper that the three Rs should be emphasised in our primary schools. The results show a great improvement.
In the Budget, all schools—primary and secondary—received a major boost. There is now an average extra direct grant of £40,000 for secondary schools and £9,000 for primary schools. That goes directly to the school, and that is how money should be spent.

Sir Robert Smith: Going back to nursery education, does the

Minister recognise the concern highlighted in a report by, I think, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that, although it is important for young children to have access to nursery education and to an educational environment and support, we should be careful about how early we start to force literacy and numeracy on them? An important part of the first stages of educational experience is developing social skills and a sense of ease at being in the educational environment. Evidence from Europe suggests that the literacy programme can start slightly later and the children will all be at the right level later on.

Mr. Wicks: Yes, that is why we have been very careful to develop a programme that prepares the child for the literacy and numeracy strategy at primary school. The Government recognise the need to get the balance right, but there can be no excuse at all for allowing some children to reach the age of 11 without basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills. None of us want that for our children and none of us should want it for any child.
The learning and skills councils for which we are currently legislating are another important part of our education strategy. They replace the training and enterprise councils and the funding councils and will have charge nationally and locally of all post-16 education and training, bringing into one funding scheme about £6 billion to benefit about 6 million learners and responding to the demands of the economy and the needs of companies and individuals. It is a revolution and it shows our commitment to the skills agenda.
University education was a focus of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West. Higher education has to be paid for. More and more of our children now have the opportunity to go to university. The proportion is now a third and rising, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set a target of 50 per cent.
As the Dearing report recognised, universities were seriously underfunded, with a drop of 36 per cent. in unit funding between 1989 and 1997, and a further cut planned for the next two years. We had to address those facts, and we did so through our policies on tuition fees and loans. However, we have always ensured that students from less-well-off families do not have to pay fees. Already more than 40 per cent. of students are exempt from making any contribution, and that proportion will go up to 50 per cent. from next year because we are raising the contribution threshold. I repeat that poor students do not pay fees. We believe that the loans system is fair, in terms of the balance between the student, his or her family and the taxpayer. We have recently introduced a package of measures to support mature students, who can have some especial difficulties in accessing education.
Recently, the Sutton Trust published a report that touches on some recent controversy. It included data on access to universities and showed that we must do more to ensure that all of our talented young people, whatever their background, get the chances they deserve in higher education. It surely is not satisfactory that only 13 per cent. of young people from lower socio-economic groups enter our top 13 universities, despite making up 50 per cent. of the school population. I heard nothing in the speech by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West that would rectify that problem. We are determined to rectify it.
Nor can it be right that at the beginning of the 21st century, not the 20th, someone from a private school is nearly 30 times more likely to get into higher education than someone from a disadvantaged background.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Has the Minister anything to tell the House about the relationship between, for example, young people's willingness to live away from home and access to higher education? Precedents in a community also have a tremendous influence on that access.

Mr. Wicks: I certainly recognise that in order to understand the data that I have cited, a variety of causes will be significant, and they may vary from one community to another. A range of matters needs to be addressed, including the aspirations of our children from poor areas, particularly when no one in the family or local community has been to university, and the schools' aspirations for their most able children. Also, there are of course implications for the universities, as has been highlighted recently.

Mr. Bercow: Although the Minister is right to want to increase the proportion of state school pupils who go into higher education, does he agree with the Secretary of State for Health, who has made it clear that he intends to relax the access criteria to medical schools specifically in order to enable more state school products to go to them?

Mr. Wicks: Products are young men and women, and our position is that every young man and woman of high ability should have an equal and fair chance to enter our universities and medical schools. That is why the debate now needs to move on to the positive measures that can be taken. We have already provided £10 million for opportunity bursaries of up to £1,000 from the autumn of 2001, aimed at young students from disadvantaged backgrounds. That will operate initially as a pilot scheme in excellence in cities areas, building on the schemes already in place in higher education institutions. We are also funding summer schools, special provision for gifted and talented pupils in inner cities, and other measures to link state schools with colleges and universities.
Much can be done and many of our universities are doing much at the moment. We want to encourage that development. It is important that the row over the issue now moves on to a positive agenda for action for the benefit of the most able boys and girls, whether from the state or private sector, whether rich or poor. That should now be the agenda.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. In light of his comment about the Government's wish to attract more students into higher education, I want to repeat the question that I put at Question Time a month ago. Will he make a categoric statement at the Dispatch Box now, ruling out any future use of differential fees, as requested by the Russell group and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals? Higher education would be out of the reach of many students if they had to pay real-terms costs.

Mr. Wicks: I am about to move on to that topic. The hon. Gentleman is prescient—the issue was raised by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West when he quoted from representatives of the Russell group.

Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wicks: Not yet, as I want to answer the question. I have an old-fashioned sense of order; indeed, our policies are built on good old-fashioned values. I shall give way to the hon. Lady later.
Many students and their parents have been worried by recent press reports about top-up fees. I am happy to reassure them that the Government's policy has not changed. Indeed, we have legislated to prevent universities from levying differential fees. We are monitoring the charges that institutions make to ensure that differential fees are not being levied. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reiterated that policy recently when he said:
Anything that discourages open access to all universities and their departments in this country is, in my view, wrong. Those who argue for substantial differentiation in fees have to answer where the resources would come from to pay for those on low incomes to enter university departments, given that the top-up fee that they were levying would have to pay for that and for any improvement in quality.—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 1106.]
That sets out our position absolutely clearly.

Miss Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am sure that the House would like more state school pupils to go to university, although it must be borne in mind that more used to go under the old grammar school system. However, the House would also be interested to know whether the Minister backs the Chancellor over the controversial case of Laura Spence. Interestingly, the Minister has not mentioned that case yet.
Laura Spence did not get into the medical school of Magdalen college, Oxford, where the Government have limited the number of places available to five. The Chancellor said that that was wrong, but the people who got the precious five places all had the same academic qualifications as Laura Spence. Some were women, some were from ethnic minorities and some came from comprehensive schools.
Will the Minister back the Chancellor and tell the House which of those students should have been deprived of a precious place at Magdalen college so that Laura Spence could go?

Mr. Wicks: The difficulty is that disproportionate numbers of students with very good A-levels come from private schools. I wish them good luck, but the reasons for that are easily understood. Although about two thirds of our high-achieving A-level students come from state schools, those percentage differences are not reflected in the intakes to our top universities. That is the issue that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done so much to highlight. If we are to build an equal society, we must tackle that problem for the sake of our young people.

Miss Kirkbride: It is class war.

Mr. Wicks: It is not a matter of class war but of the common-sense revolution that is taking place in the way we treat each and every young person in the country. We support that common-sense revolution.
I apologise for the fact that I have not addressed all the important issues. I would have had much to say on health care, for example, but I will say merely that I hope that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West and his colleagues will recognise that the recent expenditure on the NHS announced by the Government is a record investment in a major institution close to the heart of British men and women. We are finding the resources but, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who, on health care, seemed to be among the forces for conservatism, to coin a phrase, we do not think that it is a question of pouring money into the health service without thinking through how the patient and the public will get as much as possible from every extra health pound that is spent. That is why, perfectly properly, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister are leading a review to find out how we can develop structures for the health service that enable that money to be spent properly.
At the outset of my address, I referred, rather generously, to the fact that the Liberals and Labour have shared a radical tradition over the past 100 years. We have been pushing that radical agenda in government, building on the values of the British people and their concerns about fairness, and trying to balance economic prosperity with social justice. However, although we are proud of our record of achievement, I repeat that no one can be complacent. Much has been done but so much more needs to be done. Those of us in the House who have the honour to serve our constituents and meet them regularly in our advice surgeries know that in all our communities, much pain and suffering needs to be addressed. The agenda is clear—there is much to be done.
Our vision is clear, as well as our agenda. Ultimately, it is a simple vision, which decent men and women have shared over the years. Each and every citizen has equal rights and duties. Each and every citizen, whatever their background, deserves decent opportunities. That is what this debate allows us to say, and that is what the Government are doing. This is an important debate—no debate could be more important.

Mr. John Bercow: As the Minister said, the Liberal Democrats' motion is somewhat all-embracing. It refers, as observers of the debate should be aware, to education, taxation, pensions, health care and access to services in urban and rural communities. I feel sure that it was only an oversight on the part of the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip that there is no reference to kindness to animals, but no doubt that will make an appearance on a future Liberal Democrat Opposition day.
I always look forward with eager anticipation, beads of sweat upon my brow, to the contributions of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy). He is an agreeable cove, and he has fine parliamentary jousting skills, so I say with the greatest respect that it is a pleasure to engage in debate with him today. However, the motion tabled by Liberal Democrat Members and the speech that the right hon. Gentleman devoted to it were notable more for their breadth than their depth. It was, if I may say so, the scattergun approach—the broad brush. The right hon. Gentleman could not be accused of an over-intense focus on any one issue.
It must be said, however, that the proposition of the Liberal Democrats, at least in terms of the meat of some of the issues that they quite properly raised in the motion and the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech, compare favourably with the stance of the Government. The House should be aware of just how risible is the Government's amendment to the motion. Specifically, the Government apparently think it necessary and desirable, in an amendment, to state—wait for it—that
access to higher education should be based on merit not background …
That, of course, is true, but it is blindingly obvious that it is unnecessary to make any such statement in an amendment. It is an utterly banal observation. There is no dispute about it—of course we agree that merit should be the determinant of access to opportunity and to higher education. It does not require to be stated in a Government amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Not just yet, but I will happily give way to the hon. Lady in due course.
That is a banal observation. It is like saying that, when it is sunny, one ought to wear a hat to protect one's head, and when it is raining, it would be a good idea to carry an umbrella. It is blindingly obvious. What we on the Opposition Benches know, however, is that a political party should be in business unashamedly to support the pursuit of excellence, to underscore the important principle of academic freedom and to recognise that admissions tutors—not Ministers in Her Majesty's Government—are best placed to make judgments about the people whom they admit to their institutions.
I want to focus somewhat on the on-going row—believe me, it will be on-going—about elitism, admissions policies and the behaviour of the so-called privileged. This fight was picked by the Chancellor. It was outrageous for a senior Minister to pick that fight, but the battle has been well and truly joined.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), made no discernible reference to the conduct of Oxford or of Cambridge university. I have considerable respect and, in the light of recent events, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of Oxford university, Dr. Colin Lucas. I have no vested interest in the matter; I do not know the distinguished vice-chancellor. To my knowledge, I have not met him. I did not go to Oxford university. As some people will be aware, I hail from the wing of the Conservative party that pays a mortgage and buys its own furniture. I went to a comprehensive school and to Essex university, but I have the greatest admiration for Oxford university and, as I said, great sympathy for the vice-chancellor of that institution, who has been assailed by a wholly improper propaganda campaign from the Government.
What did Dr. Lucas say in the run-up to the debate? Referring to his institution, he said:
We cannot compromise on education, if we are to remain a world class university.
He is absolutely right to say that. No matter what the pressure, no matter how much cajolery, no matter the extent of the threats to that institution emanating from


Ministers, he and his admissions tutors must continue to make judgments based on their assessment of who would most obviously benefit from an Oxford university education.
There was some chuntering among Government Back Benchers when my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) observed that more state school pupils went to Oxford and Cambridge universities when there were more grammar schools. Labour Members—presumably showing the same ignorance of the facts as that displayed by the Chancellor in the recent saga—dissented from that proposition. Let me offer the Minister some facts on the matter.
In 1970—Oh, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who is herself the privileged product of a private education, regards the facts on grammar school access to Oxbridge as an appropriate occasion on which to yawn. She and other members of the Government will have to hear the facts. In 1970—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that she is not a product, but a person. If she wants to pick a semantic argument, I am happy to accept that amendment. The term "state school product", at which she cavilled when I used it in an intervention, is perfectly commonplace. If she is not familiar with it, that is her problem—not mine. If she wants to be referred to as a person, I am happy to oblige her.
In 1970, 60.4 per cent. of people going to Oxford university were from state schools, and a substantial proportion were from grammar schools. The figure for Cambridge university was 61.3 per cent. During the ensuing three decades, there was a marked deterioration. Nevertheless, over the past five years, there has been a substantial improvement in the proportion of state school pupils admitted both to Oxford and to Cambridge. It is genuinely a source of regret to me that the Minister failed to mention that in his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman—the product, I believe, of an independent education, although I do not hold that against him—is normally a very fair-minded fellow. It saddened me that he did not take the opportunity to say something about the improvement in the performance of Oxford and Cambridge in relation to state school access to those institutions. He should have done so—especially in the light of the monstrous remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 May, that it was time that Oxford university opened its doors to people from all backgrounds and, indeed, opened its doors to women. What breathtaking ignorance. Does the Chancellor not know the facts? Is he not aware of the reality? Did he not pick up the phone and inquire? If he had done so, he would have discovered that 50 per cent. of the people going to Oxford university are women. That is pretty well a reflection of the composition of our population. However, the Minister said nothing in defence of the magnificent efforts of Oxford and Cambridge or to admit that the Chancellor's remarks were a disgrace.
I had hoped that the Minister would say more about those institutions' efforts in their summer schools to encourage more children from state schools to go into higher education, and specifically to go to Oxford. He certainly did not say anything about the target schools and Oxford access scheme. It is a worthwhile scheme that is being pursued with great vigour and commitment by

professionals dedicated to the enhancement of opportunity for children from all types of background and from the length and breath of the United Kingdom. He did not say anything about the teachers in service scheme, which has been operating since 1998 in respect of Oxford university, or about the university's new website on chemistry. What a dismal performance.
The Minister seemed reluctant—just as the Prime Minister was—to endorse the inflammatory terminology deployed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He lacked the guts and forthrightness simply to say in unmistakable terms and on the record that the Chancellor had got it wrong and that he should have the decency to apologise. I am happy to admit that I have made mistakes from time to time. I have even admitted to them occasionally in the privacy of this Chamber on the basis that it would probably be a state secret if I did so.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if one feels that some of one's aspirations are not as easy to achieve as one thought, an alternative strategy is to create a totally artificial windmill and then to tilt at it?

Mr. Bercow: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. His observation carries particular weight because he known in the House for his fair-mindedness. He does not normally rush to score party political points, which is something that I rarely do, as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is particularly fair minded and he is right. The Government are in a mess and they are now seeking to divert attention.
We should be clear about the record of Ministers on this subject. On 27 May, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whose job appeared temporarily to have been appropriated by the Chancellor, agreed with the Chancellor's remarks and endorsed what he had said. On 2 June—a week later, vindicating Harold Wilson's observation about a week being a long time in politics—the Secretary of State said something rather interesting. He remarked:
I'm simply very keen that having debated for a week we are able to broaden the agenda which is, unless you raise standards and expectations, then the issue of access becomes more difficult.
A certain interpretation facility is required in that context. I think that the gist of the point that he made in a slightly circumlocutory way was, "The Chancellor got it wrong; it is all very embarrassing; he has splattered himself, myself and other Ministers with egg and it would therefore be useful if we could hurry on to talk about something else." The Secretary of State is a subtle and sophisticated fellow and he certainly did not put it in such crude and bald terms. However, we can take it that that is what he meant.

Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to a dismal performance, but he has clearly prepared his speech on the basis that the debate would be dominated by one education institution and one particular person. However, both the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and I talked about matters more generally. Does the hon. Gentleman have anything to say about education for all our children or is he just obsessed with education for the few?

Mr. Bercow: I am obsessed with education for all our children, and the Minister need be in no doubt that I shall


come to that. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister for his sedentary advice on how I should make my speech, but, on the whole, I am happy to follow my own counsel. I make no apology for devoting considerable attention to the Chancellor's remarks, as the Government have not been prepared to admit error, apologise or progress the debate. I hope that Members on both sides of the House recognise that people are turning away from politics and becoming cynical about it because they feel that we always insist on being right and are never prepared to acknowledge error. To be fair, Liberal Democrat Members have a relatively good record on that and, from time to time, take a much more reasonable approach. However, the Government never admit to error on anything which, frankly, is a mistake on their part.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the Chancellor wanted to raise these issues, would it not have been better if he had said that Oxford and Cambridge are two of many good universities and that people with good A-level grades should expect to get offers from several universities and pick the most appropriate one for them? He should then have said that many universities have access courses and all the things that my hon. Friend has talked about. Finally, he should have said that, at certain large schools, few pupils get A-levels in maths or science. We should all concentrate on those people as they have potential and need our help so that they can go on to make applications.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct. The biggest problem is encouraging people in the state sector to consider the possibility of going to Oxford or Cambridge. The Minister nodded at that important point but, unfortunately, has failed to recognise the weakness of the Government's position on the matter. He is a fair-minded man, so I ask him how the prospects of people in state schools applying to our finest universities will be enhanced if a senior member of the Government attacks and vilifies those institutions and claims that they are ridden with snobbery, are inherently biased and do not care about people from state school backgrounds? How will that encourage state school pupils to consider applying to our finest institutions?
Before the hon. Gentleman ruminates further on that point, he should be aware that many students at Oxford university reacted to the Chancellor's remarks with horror and fury because they could see how much damage they would do at grass roots. On 28 May, a Downing street spokesman—unnamed, of course, although the first name "Alastair" and the surname "Campbell" readily trip off the tongue—told The Mail on Sunday:
Despite everything that has been said, Gordon did not tell Tony that he was going to make an issue of Laura Spence. The whole thing spun out of control. Tony feels it looks as though we are going back to the bad old days when Labour was in the trenches fighting the class war. We've left that sort of thing behind us but Gordon doesn't seem to have got the message and Tony has reminded him of it.
I am glad that, without any public demonstration or apology, the Prime Minister has, behind the scenes, spoken to the Chancellor sotto voce and informed him of the error of his ways. It is time that that was reflected in a change in the Government's public attitude and policy. The same might be said of Baroness Jay. Frankly, it was monstrous of her to claim that she went from a pretty standard grammar school to Oxford, when the school has made it clear that she did nothing of the kind.
We are concerned about standards, access and opportunity. However, access and opportunity have been damaged by the Government's determination to reignite the class war and by their blinkered and stupid policy of introducing tuition fees and abolishing the maintenance grant. On 14 April 1997, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees in higher education.
That was followed up 10 days later by the then shadow Foreign Secretary who, on Leeds university student radio, said:
We are quite clear that tuition costs must be picked up by the state.
However, 100 days after the statement by the then Leader of the Opposition and 90 days after the statement by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment himself came to the House to announce the introduction of tuition fees.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House whether the Conservative party was, and remains, in favour of the introduction of tuition fees?

Mr. Bercow: The Conservative party did not go into the election supporting the introduction of tuition fees, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. There was a bipartisan agreement to establish a review of the financing of higher education, to be undertaken by Ron Dearing. The difference between the position of the Conservative Opposition and that of the Government is that we respected the Dearing package as a whole. The hon. Gentleman, who is well informed, will know that the Dearing report recommended the continuation of the maintenance grant whereas the Government, to their eternal discredit, cherry picked. They opted for the introduction of tuition fees but, against Sir Ron Dearing's advice, they abolished the maintenance grant, greatly damaging the prospects and affordability of education for the poorest people in our community.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has given a fair description of the situation that surrounded the Dearing report. However, will he remind the House whether the Conservative party, following that report, was in favour of the introduction of tuition fees—yes or no?

Mr. Bercow: I thought that I had made the position abundantly clear to the hon. Gentleman. I said that we accepted the Dearing package. That is a demonstrable fact. It is on the record. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), has repeated the commitment on a number of occasions. Why the issue is causing the hon. Gentleman's brow to furrow is a source of some mystery to me.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As well as the introduction of the charge, does my hon. Friend agree that to call it a university fee that students have to pay when the moneys do not go to the university is one of the worst abuses of language of which the Government are guilty? Should it not be referred to as the university tax? If the charge is to continue, should not the moneys at least be given to the universities so that what students pay the universities and their departments have to spend?

Mr. Bercow: It certainly is a tax, and my hon. Friend is right to point that out. However, it is not unusual for


the Government to distort and pervert language for their own purposes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the competition as to which is the worst example is a hot one.
The Government have failed on education spending, despite the gloss that the Minister put upon the subject. The reality is that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government will spend 4.7 per cent. of national income on education, whereas the previous Government spent 5 per cent.
The Minister enjoined me to talk about other matters, and I am happy to do so. I make no apology for dwelling on education. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Prime Minister said that his key priority was education, education, education. The right hon. Gentleman probably thought that by saying it three times he could cover up for the fact that he had not one remotely interesting or novel idea to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Wicks: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's figures on education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. By the year 2001–02, it will be 4.9 per cent. of GDP. If training is added, it will be 5 per cent.
Given the hon. Gentleman's obvious purported concern about quality in education, why is it that unit funding between 1989 and 1997 fell by a massive 36 per cent?

Mr. Bercow: I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. First, I think that he is wrong about the figures. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will spend a lower proportion of GDP on education than the Conservative Government. If he wishes to correspond with me about the detailed movement of the figures in relation to unit costs, I shall be happy to oblige him. I want to focus on the big picture, and he is right to encourage me to do so. I want to focus, for example, on the further betrayal of grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] I will deal with his point. He must exercise what degree of restraint he is able to muster as I develop my case. I hope that he will be as patient in listening to me as I was—I was extremely patient—in listening to his fascinating animadversions.
I want to focus on—

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: No, not at the moment. I want to make some progress. Members are complaining and want me to talk about other issues. I shall be delighted to do so, but I must have the time to devote to that purpose.
On 7 February 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that a Labour Government posed no threat to grammar schools,
to their continuance or to their ethos, or to their quality.
That statement was followed up by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, in a letter to the electors of Wirral, South in the by-election campaign. He stated:
A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
Since then, they have put on to the statute book what is a one-way ratchet, allowing for the destruction of grammar schools, but not permitting their creation.
The Government's record is bad, but the really guilty men are sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They are in a hopeless position from which to excoriate the Government for their record. Let us turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). What has he said on the future of grammar schools? I remind him, in case he is suffering from a convenient amnesia, that, in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the hon. Gentleman argued that the Government should
legislate to remove—
as he put it—
grammar schools.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 376.]
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), his sidekick, who I think is giving the House the pleasure of a winding-up speech tonight, observed on 1 September 1999:
Liberal Democrats nationally are opposed in principle to selection for secondary education.
The hon. Gentleman is cheering enthusiastically at that proposition. In that case, let me say that some clear points flow from his statement. He used the word "nationally". Does he understand that it is important for observers of the debate correctly to interpret Liberal Democrats' use of language? One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out what that means. The get-out clause in the hon. Gentleman's observation is, "That is what we are pontificating about at national level, but what local Liberal Democrats say and do is an entirely different matter." Is that what he means?
What does the hon. Gentleman say to his Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—

Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I will in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman contains himself. The choice is his. If he behaves himself, I will give way and if he does not, I will not.
The hon. Gentleman should tell me what his attitude is to the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Colchester (Mr. Russell), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). Why do I mention those hon. Members? The answer is simple: they have grammar schools in their constituencies. Discovering from those hon. Members whether they support the retention of grammar schools in their areas is more difficult than someone who is not a dentist extracting a tooth from someone's mouth. Those people become Trappist monks in those circumstances. They are not prepared to tell us whether they support the retention or the abolition of those institutions. We all know that the Liberal Democrats specialise in chameleon politics. We all know that they say different things at different times in different places to different people for different purposes, but that is hitting a new low.
At least the Government's position is just about coherent. It is to say, "We will put on to the statute book regulations that allow for the destruction of grammar schools, but Ministers themselves will not soil their hands by getting involved in campaigns. What local Labour Members do is a matter for them." The Liberal


Democrats' position appears to be for the national party directly to contradict what the local party or Member of Parliament might do. That is extraordinary.
What do the Liberal Democrats say about the explosion of red tape in our schools? Do they think that it is objectionable that schools have faced a further 2,468 regulations over the past 12 months? If they do believe that it hampers the efforts of teachers and of governors to advance the cause of educational standards, why is it that that did not merit even a brief mention in the speech by the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
What do the Liberal Democrats believe about the Government's ridiculous politically correct policy of seeking artificially to reduce school exclusions by a fixed target of one third, irrespective of the seriousness of the bad behaviour that might necessitate, in the view of the professionals, the exclusion of pupils from schools? Upon that subject, there is an extraordinary and untypical reticence from the Liberal Democrats.
The Liberal Democrats aspire to be a party of government. It seems an improbable prospect but, if that is their aspiration, they ought to have something to say about a key policy of real concern to head teachers, teachers and governors.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has unveiled a common-sense Conservative policy to tackle the problem of rank indiscipline in large numbers of schools across the country, and he is receiving support from teachers and parents and, indeed, from teachers unions. I am not averse to receiving support from time to time from teachers trade unions, when we are pioneering sensible policies and they want to join forces with us.
Why did the Liberal Democrats not say a little more about the appalling failure of the Government's policies on the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for young people? What are those policies doing to advance the cause of opportunity in our society? I hope that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon, North, is aware that, of those who have gone to interview under the new deal for lone parents scheme promoted by the Government, only 4.5 per cent. have so far secured jobs—that is, 20,590 out of 454,920.
What do the Liberal Democrats think about that? What do they think about the failure of the new deal for young people? Of those who have gone through the scheme so far, 58 per cent. have ended up back on benefits. The scheme is also failing businesses, increasing numbers of which have withdrawn from it, complaining about its bureaucratic burden and administrative complexity.
What do the Liberal Democrats say about the way in which the scheme has failed other unemployed people—those who have been unemployed for long periods, who need help and deserve support, who could benefit from an active programme of public assistance but have been denied such help by the Government?

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I apologise for the fact that I had to slip out of the Chamber for a moment. I gather that the hon. Gentleman has been making characteristically pertinent remarks about my contribution. If I had gone through all the topics on which he wanted me to comment, in the detail that he demands, I would have made an even longer speech than his.

Mr. Bercow: I am happy to concede that the right hon. Gentleman must be the judge of his own speech. I said

genuinely at the start that I have always had great respect and affection for him, so I will not quibble with him about that. He is entitled to make his own speech, but I thought that some of the points that I am making about Government policy and the weaknesses in it were worthy of a mention by someone occupying his high office. I accept that it is for the right hon. Gentleman to make a judgment about the points that he wants to develop.
The new deal for young people has failed the taxpayer, costing thousands upon thousands of pounds for every place. It is failing in the training and education option—

Mr. Wicks: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position through most of my speech, and he now shakes his head in a bizarre fashion, ignoring the fact that, having gone through the training and education option of the new deal for young people, participants are twice as likely not to get a job at the end of it as they are to get a job. Only about 16 per cent. of the entrants to the scheme end up with qualifications.
The scheme is failing in the north, where it is most needed, and succeeding slightly better in the south, where it is less needed. The whole thing is a mess. The Government have got it wrong. The scheme is indiscriminate and badly judged, and it is not delivering.

Mr. Wicks: I was shaking my head because my head tends to do that when I listen to nonsense. We have heard much nonsense about the new deal. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at a human level, when, as I do, one speaks to the young men and women who have had an opportunity through the new deal—there is one in my office—one sees the benefits for young people, which will last throughout their lifetimes. The economic impact on the individual and on our economy is vast. The hon. Gentleman should be more generous about an extremely successful scheme.

Mr. Bercow: I do not know to which young people the Minister is referring. The number of letters that I receive from around the country from young people who have gone on the new deal and have found it miserably disappointing exceeds the number of letters that I receive about any other single subject. As my personal assistant can testify, like other Members of Parliament, I receive a very large mailbag indeed.
I politely suggest to the Minister that he ought at least to be aware that many people feel let down. The Government engaged in a great deal of hype about the scheme. People were led to believe that they would obtain sustained and unsubsidised jobs at the end of it. The Prime Minister, who repeatedly makes mistakes on the subject at Question Time, about which I have corresponded with him, does not seem to recognise that the great majority of people are not getting into sustained, unsubsidised jobs. Many people get jobs, which are usually subsidised, for approximately 13 weeks. They subsequently go through the revolving door of benefit dependency all over again. The Minister should know the facts. If he does not, it is a disgrace; if he does, he should be sufficiently candid to acknowledge them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to be ungenerous to the Government.
In their first year, they had a commendable record of getting young people off the long-term unemployed register and back to work. Three times as many people per month went back to work before the new deal was introduced as afterwards. Surely the new deal is a busted flush. The Minister should consider why it fails young people.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct; the figures clearly demonstrate that long-term youth unemployment fell at a faster rate between April 1993 and May 1997, under the stewardship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, than under this Government. The Minister should know that.
To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they made reasonable points about pension provision and the way in which the Government have let down many elderly people. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West spoke with great sincerity and I sympathised with much of what he said. However, he did not refer to some of the Government's more damaging actions. For example, their decision to abolish tax credits has been costly to many poor pensioners. The abolition of the widows bereavement allowance for 60 to 65-year-olds has been expensive and painful. The abolition of private medical insurance for those over 65 has been damaging. The Government who said that they wanted to scrap means-testing are increasing it.
The Chancellor, when in opposition, said as long ago as 1993 that it was his ambition to end means-testing for pensioners. However, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has regularly observed, means-testing is increasing and the Government now acknowledge that it will increase further in future. They expect the proportion of pensioners who depend on income support to increase from one in five to one in three in the next 50 years. That is a serious problem, which requires attention. It needs more than the Government's smug self-satisfaction about what, to date, constitutes a mixed record at best.
The savings ratio has dramatically declined. That has imposed real pressures, of which the Government seem unconscious. The policies on social exclusion are not nearly as well developed as the Minister would like us to believe. Two years ago, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—spoke about a proliferation of programmes that were insufficiently co-ordinated. Two years later, circumstances in health care have not markedly improved.
The Minister must know about the huge numbers of people, of all political persuasions, throughout the country who believe that they have to wait too long to get on a waiting list, that they have to struggle to see a consultant, and that they are not guaranteed maximum waiting times. He must know that the health service is creaking under the most unbearable strain from the Administration. Yet the Minister displays only insouciance and great satisfaction with the Government's achievements to date. The health service's predicament is serious. I receive letters all the time—as, I am sure, do Liberal Democrat Members—from people who do not care much about politics but care a great deal about the health service.
Some of the letters come from people who work in the health service. We meet health service staff all the time and they say that the pressures are worse than at any other time in their professional lives. I accept that pressures have always been great. That was true when my party was in power. I do not claim that we got it 100 per cent. right; it would be absurd and arrogant to make such an assertion. However, it is foolish for the Minister to behave as though Government policy does not have the fundamental weaknesses that people across the country pick up.
I shall deal with transport, which is relevant given that the Liberal Democrat motion, perfectly reasonably, refers to access to services in urban and rural communities. However, it does not refer to the breathtaking increases fuel duty that have been suffered during the past three years and the damage that those policies cause. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will mention that in winding up for the Liberal Democrats. I found it worrying in preparing for the debate to observe that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—who, sadly, is not in his place—said:
I fully intend to support the Government on the principle of the escalator.—[Official Report, 6 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 844.]
He said that the fuel escalator was a market-minded method of improving behaviour.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who I discern is also not in his place, suggested on 27 April this year that our European competitors should raise their transport taxes to create a level playing field. He did not think that our taxes were too high; he complained—this is a rarity indeed—that the transport and fuel tax rates obtaining in European Union countries were too low. That is an extraordinary proposition, but the Liberal Democrats are all over the place on such matters.
In a welcome intervention on 9 June 1999, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that Liberal Democrat traffic tax policies were "unpopular with the public" and "unlikely to be effective" in combating climate change. That was a welcome outburst of frankness and candour from the hon. Gentleman, but it is intriguing that that was not even an example of Front Benchers disagreeing with Back Benchers. Those hon. Gentlemen are all Front-Bench spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats, but that is not a remarkable state of affairs because, so far as I can tell, virtually every Liberal Democrat Member is a member of the Front-Bench team. No particularly competitive test is involved in getting on to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but it would be helpful if there were a little joined-up thinking between right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on those Benches, given that they have the audacity to propose an all-embracing motion that criticises the Government, and implicitly criticises us, even though a lacuna has been revealed in their own thinking.
The Government's record is frankly abysmal, and the Liberal Democrats are not well placed to criticise it in the light of the fact that they want to tax, spend and borrow more, and the Government probably bow only to the representatives on the Liberal Democrat Benches in terms of political correctness. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly said that it is wrong to criticise institutions on the basis of one case, but he did not say whether he thought that a general attack on the behaviour of those institutions was justified. I had hoped that he might be prepared to support the magnificent


efforts in which two of the finest universities in the country are engaged to improve state school access to them. Regrettably, he did nothing of the kind.
The fact is that on education, the treatment of pensioners and the conduct of transport policy—not to mention the attitude to this country's future in Europe and the fact that we can best maximise opportunity through free trade, not federalism; co-operation, not coercion; and a Europe of nation states, not a single European state—neither the Government nor the Liberal Democrats are well placed.
The Government are getting it wrong, but I regret that the Liberal Democrats are fulfilling the Home Secretary's description of them. Although they may be perfectly agreeable individuals in private company, those characters are the scavengers of British politics. They do not adhere to a fixed position. They do not know the meaning of the word "principle". They are prepared to say wholly different things at different times in different places to different people for different purposes. They are not credible challengers to the Government
The Conservative Opposition—committed to commonsense policies in education, health, social security, transport and in the conduct of international relationships—are the proper challengers to the Government. I look forward to the day when we remove the Minister from the Treasury Bench and my right hon. and hon. Friends readily take his place.

Mr. Phil Hope: The debate about elitism and access to higher education that has taken place in the press is really about fundamental values. It is about how we can raise standards throughout the country, and about ensuring that there is equality of opportunity.
Too many young people in my constituency leave school at 16 without adequate qualifications—without achieving the potential of which we all know they are capable—and not enough go on to further or higher education. In the 42-minute speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), we heard not a word about the divisiveness that featured in 18 years of Tory Government. We heard nothing about the underfunding in those 18 Tory years, nothing about the under-achievement of those 18 Tory years, and not a word to defend a track record that—in view of what my constituency has inherited—I can only describe as appalling. Young people have simply not achieved what they are capable of achieving.
I believe that we must tackle the problem of elitism by raising standards, and raising the expectations of young people in a comprehensive education. We must widen access to further education through colleges, and by ensuring that universities do more to reach out to under-represented groups.
I want to focus on the issue of standards. Unless there is a massive increase in the opportunities presented to young people from a range of backgrounds and neighbourhoods, we cannot offer lifelong learning and access to higher skills—services that are needed for individuals, and for the success of local economies.
I have an image of a pyramid. If we want to raise the top of the pyramid to achieve greater success, we must increase the base: more young people must be drawn into

the learning economy, into skills and development and into gaining qualifications. Having begun, young people can move higher and higher up the pyramid, and can eventually achieve the best result.
The Liberal Democrat motion starts by being ambitious about equal opportunities in Britain and raising standards, but then peters out into a shopping list of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to happen. That misses the point. The point is that we need a fundamental root-and-branch change, at local level. Our education institutions, our local councils and our communities must play an active role in raising expectations and delivering what people want in their communities.
I want to demonstrate that, when people are brought together and the circumstances are viewed holistically and comprehensively, change can be achieved. I shall describe what we are achieving in Corby, with a Labour Government, a Labour county council and a Labour borough council.
Let us consider a person's life. A person is born and then becomes a child, and subsequently, perhaps, a student. That person then goes into the workplace. At every step along the way, the Government are endeavouring to inject resources, ideas and innovation into the system, in order to raise standards and give people a better chance.
For under-eights we have the sure start programme in Corby. It is delivering opportunities and help to parents with very young children: it is helping them with parenting skills, education and child care generally. Children aged two and three—children who are virtually babies—are being given the best start that we can give them. Support is being given not only to children but to parents. Parents are being helped to improve their parenting skills, and are also being given the child care that they need if they are going to work.
In Corby we have the Pen Green centre, a centre of excellence recognised by the Government as a beacon. It shows how it is possible to work with parents with young children in a way that gives the children the best possible start in life.
As for primary education, we have seen astonishing results from the numeracy and literacy hours. Those changes to the school curriculum in primary schools in my constituency have raised standards to a remarkable extent. The statistics are really exciting. Teachers and governors are recognising that they are achieving more than they ever achieved before because of the new way of working in primary schools.
Moreover, we have introduced an education action zone in Corby. It is supported by the Government, who are providing £1 million per year for the next three years, with the support of local businesses, local councils, local police and the health authority, with the aim of bringing about a co-ordinated approach to raising standards in Corby. Instead of the divisiveness and competition that were so destructive during the Tory years, Corby's schools are working together. Teachers are sharing resources, ideas, training and support. Pupils are being offered a wider range of courses. Our action zone embraces every school, secondary and primary, in its endeavour to build the pyramid of success and achievement.
We can focus on information technology and giving young people computing skills. People as young as seven or eight can do things on computers that many hon.


Members could not achieve. We are working in partnership with parents, because not everything can be done in the classroom. Anyone who has taught, like any parent, knows that raising standards relies on help with homework, on out-of-school-hours activities, on Saturday clubs and so on. All that enhances and enriches a child's education, building the pyramid one step higher.
The Corby education action zone, like many others, is working in some of the most disadvantaged areas with some of the most challenging targets for change and educational attainment. Those will be achieved only if there is real co-operation. We need teachers who are enthusiastic about teaching, giving all they can in the long hours that they work, in partnership with parents and governors, to ensure that every child—not the few, not just one school—receives the best opportunities.
In Corby, we have taken the opportunity to create a fresh start school. We have dealt with the problem of over-provision of places by merging two schools to create a new Corby community college. I can give the Government notice now that we will apply for a specialism in arts and media at that school. With a specialism, parents can see what they want. They can say, "My child is going to a school that is special." Every school will be special. We have technology colleges and language colleges: now we look forward to having an arts and media college. Corby is famous throughout the United Kingdom for dance, and children will know that that can be enhanced and supported through the new fresh start school.
Even that is not enough. The Government's new Connexions service—for which the Minister is directly responsible—is an ambitious programme, combining careers and youth services for people aged 14 to 21. Young people with the greatest need will receive the most resources, giving them the best possible start. If they are struggling, not doing so well or having problems at home, they can have a personal adviser, a mentor to whom they can turn for help in making the transition from being young into the world of work. In that way, they can make the most of the opportunities given to them.
I hold a parliamentary youth forum in my constituency. Young people in Corby want to go places, and they are held back only by institutions that will not give them opportunities. We have to ensure that we provide them with those opportunities.
I draw to the Minister's attention the kick start programme in my constituency, a particularly innovative scheme. It involves 15-year-olds who have basically given up on school, and perhaps school has given up on them. What should we do with those young people? Kick start is a programme of social education combining the best of youth work with the best of careers guidance and support. It works with young people outside school, helping them to re-engage with what education is all about and to realise what is possible. I have presented awards to young people who had been written off by the system. After a year of intensive support and help, they are moving into Tresham institute of further education and gaining NVQ and GNVQ qualifications that they would not previously have dreamed of, far less aspired to achieving.
Connexions and kick start exemplify the kind of programme that we are putting in place to raise standards and build the pyramid of success. We have not heard

enough about further education—the Cinderella service in too many people's eyes. FE is critical. I am talking not about the universities, but about people who want to take vocational training. They do not seek university degrees, but training that will help them into work, or even to a university. FE colleges give opportunities for part-time work or courses and evening courses, offering access to education that simply did not exist before. If we are to achieve equal opportunities, the Government's expansion of further education, targeting people in areas of under-participation and channelling resources towards disadvantaged areas, is the best way in which to motivate—incentivise is the awful word that people use—colleges into grabbing people and getting courses going. Perhaps we will not get them into the college—which might be an institution that they would never go to—so why do we not run courses in the community? Community centres are available, enabling us to take education and learning out to those people. That, too, will enable us to build the pyramid, to bring more people into learning, success and achievement.
I am particularly pleased about the European directive that provides for time off for study or training for every 16, 17 or 18-year-old. Therefore, even those young people who decide that they want to go straight into work on leaving school at 16 have a mandatory right to one day off per week to leave the workplace and to get further education and qualifications. It is another example of the Government's action on raising standards.
At every step in a young person's life as he or she grows up—whether a three-year-old, on the sure start programme; an eight-year-old, in a numeracy hour; a 12-year-old who—thanks to an education action zone—has a new information technology programme and a new computer suite at school; or someone finding new opportunities through the Connexions service or further education—the Government are intervening to increase standards, raise qualifications and create opportunities.
Even in the rural part of my constituency, in east Northamptonshire, we are not closing small village schools. When the Tory Government were in office, 450 village schools were closed. In the past three years, under this Government, only six schools have closed. In rural areas, we are stir porting what we believe in—the value of small village schools.
I should like briefly to touch on one other aspect of equal opportunities: raising the skill levels of people at work. In my constituency, there is a particular issue—which I have raised on the Floor of the House before—about inequality in the workplace, especially as it affects temporary workers. Many people, too many of whom are young people, gain access to work through employment agencies offering, for example, a two or three-day contract to make sandwiches. Those temporary workers receive a couple of days' pay, which they may well spend over the weekend, and then go back for another couple of days' work. It is temporary work, without a career structure, development, training or opportunities.
I have been pressing the Government hard to start cleaning up the cowboy agencies, whose behaviour encourages young people to leave work without qualifications and to begin temporary work. Those young people know only that type of work. They know that they work for a couple of days, earn some cash, spend it all


over the weekend and then start again. Round and round they go in that cycle, without development, simply chundering round on the bottom.
I am pleased that the Government have managed to change all that. Temporary workers now have rights that they never had before. Now, under this Government, temporary workers are entitled to the same training, pension provision and pay that full-time workers in that workplace receive. We have started to create standards in the workplace that will raise people's income. It is not, however, simply about income, but about creating stability and providing a ladder of opportunity that was never there before.
When we examine the issue of equal opportunities, and the specific issue of educational opportunities, we should realise that it is not a matter of simply chucking more money at the problem. It is about determining how we can intervene at each stage in a young person's development, from birth to adulthood, to ensure that they are supported, receiving the very best and achieving their maximum potential. We also need to determine how we can help back into the system those whom it is failing, so that they get the most out of it.
I want to build on the success in my constituency of primary schools, nurseries, play groups, the secondary system and further education colleges, to ensure that every single young person in Corby and east Northamptonshire gets the best start in life. We must have an openness and transparency at every level in education. We do not want to see elitism or discrimination operating at any level. There must be open and equal access throughout the system. By offering to the many what was—under the Tory Government—available only to the few, by removing the barriers and by making opportunities, we can build the expectation that everyone, regardless of his or her background, can aspire to the very best.

Mr. Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). His speech was full of enthusiasm and commitment to his constituency, and whether or not I agree wholeheartedly with his remarks is irrelevant. His speech stands in stark contrast to the one that preceded it, that of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I hope he feels better now: his speech reminded me of banging your head against a brick wall and how good it is when you stop; the hon. Gentleman was banging his head for a long time.
I was slow to rise to speak because I had been pondering whether I represent the forces of conservatism, because my professional background is that of a teacher and I remain a staunch supporter and defender of the teaching profession, or whether I am one of the liberal elite, because I continue to support somewhat unfashionable beliefs regarding local democracy, local government and local education authorities. However, I need not have pondered my dilemma for so long, as it appears that the definition of the forces of conservatism is anyone who does not agree with the Prime Minister and the definition of the liberal elite is anyone who does not agree with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I can, therefore, proudly tell the House that I fall into both categories.
The saddest aspect of the current battle between the opposing forces of darkness is that both sides use their slogans, insults and misguided attacks to disguise the fact

that, despite Britain's undoubted economic success, ours is a nation that is deeply divided, one in which access to opportunity still depends to a significant extent on social background. It is not the forces of conservatism or the liberal elite that we should attack; it is the failure of successive Governments to attack social injustice and inequality.
It is no good the Leader of the Opposition stamping around the country like a skinheaded Rottweiler, baring his prejudicial teeth. He knows full well that he and his party revelled in injustice during the Tories' 18 years in office. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of people living in poverty in this country increased by 300 per cent. When the Conservatives left office, 10.7 million people lived in households receiving less than half the national average income; 3.4 million of those people were children. That is not a record of which any party leader should be proud.
One in five adults have literacy problems. Nine per cent. of children leave school without qualifications, often entering an underclass, as they have no job to go to. The speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham took 42 minutes, and the vast majority of it dealt with the elitism of the Tory party—its obsession with the few and with grammar schools, which are mentioned at every opportunity. I have to tell him that I have not wavered an inch from my fundamental belief that selection is not right. I will never demur from that position.
Had the hon. Gentleman given my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) the opportunity to speak, instead of casting him down in an appalling manner, my hon. Friend would have made it clear that Liberal Democrats as a party believe that local democracy and devolution are incredibly important. They lie at the heart of our beliefs, which is why we believed so strongly in different solutions for Scotland and Wales. It is why we are proud of our Executive in Scotland and of our colleagues in the devolved Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: While we are talking about selection based on academic ability, did the hon. Gentleman see the BBC "On the Record" programme at the weekend, on which the Conservative education spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), said that she wanted all schools to have the opportunity to select pupils on the basis of academic ability? Yesterday, however, on a programme called "Powerhouse", the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he was a great supporter of comprehensive schools. Does the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) perceive any consistency in the Conservatives' policy?

Mr. Willis: I have long since found the answer to that difficult question. It is clear that the common-sense revolution wants to create 24,000 free schools. Every free school would have its own admissions authority and arrangements for intake and be a wonderful Utopia. Indeed, if they wanted to select the whole caboodle, I suppose that they would be able to get away with it. The hon. Member for Buckingham talks about the Liberals being all things to all men, but if such a policy is not all things to all men, children and, I should add, women, frankly I do not know what is.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to celebrate diversity and to say that he favours the


application of local solutions, but how does he square that belief in diversity with his remark that the Government should have legislated for the removal of grammar schools? How can he say on one hand that he is in favour of different solutions all over the country, and on the other that his only criticism of the Government on grammar schools is that they did not go far enough and should have abolished the lot by decree? He must make up his mind.

Mr. Willis: Such obsession with grammar schools is always interesting. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman straightforwardly. Given that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment in opposition that there would be no more selection, the vast majority of people voted in the election in the belief that a Labour Government would abolish selection in all schools. Labour's position was honourable, but the one that it ultimately took was a cop-out. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham on that.
However, in the Committees considering the School Standards and Framework Bill and the Learning and Skills Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath and I spoke very strongly against the flawed ballot arrangements. If one looks at the first ballot in Ripon, one sees just how flawed: 25 per cent. of parents who voted did not even send their kids to state-sector schools, yet they had a say on whether grammar school status should end. We cannot allow that to happen.
The policies espoused by the hon. Member for Buckingham very much reminded me of the previous Tory Government's—targeted at creating yet more division, inequality and inequity in education. Assisted places, grant-maintained schools and nursery vouchers may have helped a few poor families, but let us face reality: every one of those initiatives was targeted at potential middle-class Tory voters. They were for that purpose and that purpose only. Little attention was given to the mass of children in our state schools or to the lack of opportunity that many were afforded in an education system that was grossly underfunded, undervalued and constantly under attack from Tory Ministers.
The Tory Leader yesterday spoke about Labour's education policy as a
smack in the teeth for every teacher and parent.
His violent and intemperate language might please his core right-wing voters—in contrast to the baseball cap and denims at Notting Hill carnival—but it disguises the fact that the largest growth in permanently excluded pupils occurred between 1992 and 1997 when he was in the Cabinet. There were 2,910 such pupils in 1992 and 12,000 by 1997. That is what happened in our schools during Tory years.
Even now, the Leader of the Opposition has no solution to the hard-core problem of challenging behaviour, social exclusion and inequality of opportunity. Why—because it is a deep-rooted and complex problem. Rather like his recent deep-sea diving exploits, he is never prepared to look far below the surface. Simply locking those children out of our schools—out of mind, out of society—is not a solution.
Of total excluded students, 60 per cent. never return to school; 20 per cent. are already in the care of social services—already damaged, with poor self-image.

Children from lone parent families constitute 34 per cent. of those excluded. Ethnic minority students from an Afro-Caribbean background are four times more likely to be excluded than their white counterparts, and heaven help children with a special educational needs statement, who are seven times more likely to be excluded.
Does the Leader of the Opposition have anything to say about why those groups are being excluded in such great numbers? The answer is no, because in all the years of Tory rule there was no attempt to get to the root of the problem and find out what was happening. There was no research into why certain groups of youngsters are turned off by school and act in an antisocial way. We need that research. I hope that the Minister will commit the Government to avoiding abandoning children in sin bins in either schools or pupil referral units and to taking a more deep-seated approach.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about exclusions policy. He talked about the figures for excluded children not returning to school. Is he aware of the experience of the Zaccheus centre in Birmingham, from where the large majority of pupils return to school after some months? Does he accept—this is a matter of real concern to professionals—that a teacher who has a knife wielded at him or her by a persistently violent pupil has a right to be protected from that pupil, even if that means exclusion?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman accused the Minister of tabling a banal amendment to our motion, and that was a banal question. No right-thinking individual believes that teachers should not be protected from violent students. Unlike him and his privileged friends, I spent my whole life in state education, not in the leafy lanes of Buckingham but working in downtown schools in Leeds and Middlesbrough with very difficult and challenging youngsters, and in 34 years I never came across a student wielding a knife—not once.
That is not to say that there are no students who wield knives, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman, before he goes apoplectic again, that the vast majority of Britain's schools are safe places in which to work. The vast majority of teachers do not encounter the horrors that he and his colleagues peddle stories about around the country and portray as the norm, frightening kids and parents into choosing private education.

Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman has hit on an important point about the deliberate attempt by the Conservatives to raise fears. They create unnecessary worry and, more importantly, undermine the real efforts of teachers to deal with and help challenging and difficult pupils. The scaremongering undermines our efforts to give teachers the support and help that they need to do a good job.

Mr. Willis: That is right. The Conservatives are using scare tactics. They have absolutely no other policy. Yes, violent and disruptive pupils must be removed from the classroom, and even the Minister would accept that the ludicrous targets for cutting exclusions must be abandoned by the Department for Education and Employment, but unless we address behaviour problems in a comprehensive and imaginative way, all we will succeed in doing is to create an even greater problem for society further down the road.
When one considers the social exclusion unit's report, "Bridging the Gap" and sees how many of those 170,000 youngsters leave school and spend the next two years out of work, with no hope and moving into crime, one realises that this is a real issue that must be grasped. I would have hoped that we would have a consensus across the House on how to tackle challenging behaviour. Instead, the opportunity has been used to score cheap political points.
It is not fashionable to link social disadvantage with educational underachievement. There is always evidence to demonstrate that some outstanding individuals and institutions buck the trend. However, there remains a strong negative correlation between social disadvantage and educational achievement, just as there is a strong positive correlation between educational achievement and economic and social upward mobility. Given those facts, I do not see why it should surprise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that while a mere 7 per cent. of our children attend private schools, they make up 35 per cent. of the straight-A students and take up some 50 per cent. of Oxbridge places. Inequities are as deep-rooted in our culture as they are in our Government, in the civil service and in our major universities. Inequity will be found anywhere where wealth is still able to purchase social advantage.
The answer from the Liberal Democrats is not the politics of envy. It is not a re-run of a former class war, but the real politics of fighting the seeds of injustice that create barriers for so many of our young people. The Chancellor's attack on Oxbridge was misguided. His attack should have been on his own Government for introducing tuition fees, for ending grants for students and for pricing poor students out of the marketplace, because that is what has happened, according to the figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and the Mosaics survey.
The Chancellor's attack should have been on the Prime Minister for encouraging the Russell group and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to believe that a Labour Government would allow them to charge differential tuition fees in a USA-style revamping of higher education finance. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech today, but the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 would allow universities to charge differential fees. I accept that the Government would then take grant from the universities in equal amounts, but nothing in the legislation would stop differential charging.
The Chancellor's attack should have been on his own Government for continuing systematically to reduce the unit funding level for higher education students from £4,980 in 1997 to £4,750 this year. The hon. Member for Buckingham did not answer the Minister's intervention about the 35 per cent. decrease since 1989, but in that year the unit funding per student in higher education was £7,385. It was reduced by 35 per cent. and fell to an unacceptable level by the time this Government took over. We do need a systematic overhaul of an outdated and biased admission system, but the real challenge is ensuring that a greater number of our young people aspire to go to Oxbridge and have the qualifications they need to do so. That means tackling the inherent injustices in our state education system.
I saw as one of my most important challenges as a head as being to help young people from underprivileged backgrounds fight social injustice through their education. To deny that our education system has that prime purpose

is to deny the need for universal education at all and to return to the pre-1870 Britain, where the working classes were educated simply according to economic need. We hear fine words from the Government about education for the many, not the few, but so much of their approach has been disjointed and lacked research, co-ordination and vision, as well as resources.
The social exclusion unit was set up in 1997 after the Prime Minister's call for a
Britain in which no one is excluded from opportunity and the chance to develop their potential.
How right he was. He also said that we should make it
our national purpose to tackle social division and inequality.
I make no bones about saying to the Minister that the establishment of health action zones, education action zones and employment action zones has been useful, provided that they are co-ordinated, as they appear to be at the moment. Tackling social exclusion and poverty, wherever it occurs, should be something in which we all participate.
Bernstein wrote in 1970 that
Education cannot compensate for society.
If we accept that social disadvantage is a key factor, if not an excuse, for educational failure at whatever level, including Oxbridge, we must also recognise that tackling poverty in all its facets is the most effective way to encourage educational achievement for all. That is the challenge for the Chancellor and his colleagues in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review. The right hon. Gentleman will be judged by the Liberal Democrats on whether he addresses social injustice and poverty or the voting intentions of more affluent groups.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Several slogans could be brought into this debate. I would like to see, for example, parents involved; residents trusted; professionals valued; and young people seriously consulted. That little menu could make an enormous contribution to achieving a society that we could really value.
We could begin by involving parents. One of the saddest features of underperforming schools is that when heads, governors and staff turn out for an open night, nobody comes. That is a real tragedy and it happens again and again. Even when certificates are handed out, few parents take the trouble to turn up in far too many of our schools. That is partly a function of the hours that those parents work, and it may be that certificate-awarding ceremonies and parents' evenings should be staggered, so that people who work late at night in underpaid jobs can attend. We may need to be more imaginative. However, in many schools our young professional teachers have an uphill struggle against parental indifference, which is broken only when the parents believe that their child has been discriminated against and, in many cases, make a thoroughly inappropriate response.
A young woman I know of was in her first job and keen as mustard. She worked in an inner-London school and found that, in a class of 35, 16 languages were spoken and one child was so disturbed that he sat at the back nodding his head until he made himself sick. What happens to the other 34 children while the unaccompanied teacher tries to clear up the mess? After two terms in the


school, that young woman, in her first year of teaching, was offered the deputy headship because none of the other staff had stayed. That is the reality of some areas of our education system. We must do much more to support teachers. Instead, they are denigrated and verbally assaulted for being incompetent or inefficient. There are inefficient teachers, and they should be eased out of the system, but the majority struggle against tremendous odds.
Governments are full of good intentions, but as we all know, good intentions lead straight to hell. All education Ministers want to change things, so they issue a raft of circulars on taking office. By the time the last school in the country has implemented those changes, the first school to do so is probably three education Ministers' changes down the track. It is impossible for schools to make sense of what they are being asked to do, if they are asked far too often to change what they do.
I believe that we make far too little use of volunteers to support professionals. I am a trustee of the charity Community Service Volunteers, which for many years has been trying to get employers interested in sending employees into schools at lunchtime. People who do that enrich their own lives and improve their performance at work, but also enrich enormously the lives of the pupils whom they help.
I think that the country should have a national youth service. Young people should be able to volunteer for a proper length of time so that they can find themselves. The Nuffield study and other studies have found considerable evidence that young people who volunteer change their attitudes to minorities and to each other.
There is a danger that the debate belongs in the land of the Wizard of Oz. Hon. Members have talked about getting to university and the surge of people going into higher education. I am delighted that that is happening, but we must ensure that higher education is as it should be. I am deeply worried by the changes that have taken place in some parts of higher education in recent years. It is now common for senior academics to be promoted on the basis of the money that they have attracted through their research, rather than on the basis of their teaching.
Teaching is becoming very much disregarded, at least in many of our more successful universities. Most students have no interest in research. They are left short changed when they are lured into higher education, only to find that teaching in universities is undervalued. University teachers have no support staff to speak of, and have to do everything themselves. That is a shame.
We should place much more trust in people who live in difficult areas. Far too many people live in intolerable conditions, and the vast majority of badly run estates are represented by members of the Labour party. Many of those councillors have almost given up hope. They do not have any serious intention of giving self-determination to residents. If residents were given only a relatively small amount of money to spend, they would transform the quality of their lives—the syringes would be taken off the grass, the dog mess would be removed, and lights would be repaired the day after they were broken.
Such things are essential, but the idea of trusting the poor with any money at all is discounted in local authorities up and down the land. That is a shame and a huge mistake.
We do not consult young people seriously enough. The Government came into office claiming that they would consult more widely than ever before. They set up focus groups, and I am sure that they have been very useful. They have also introduced a raft of legislation that directly impacts on young people, but they have never seriously set out to determine the opinions of young people.
Young people have an enormous amount to offer. Very often, they know what they want—if not in detail, at least in outline. I am chairman of the steering group for the United Kingdom youth parliament. When that organisation takes shape, it will provide a representative group of young people against which policies can be tested, and from which the ideas for new policies can be derived.

Mr. Hope: I could not agree more genuinely about the need to consult young people. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have consulted young people, through a variety of mechanisms. Young people have visited No. 10 Downing street as part of the social exclusion unit's strategy for including consultation with young people in its decision-making process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that every hon. Member could do far more to consult young people? For example, I hold parliamentary youth forums in my constituency to ensure that I hear young people's views. Could not other hon. Members do the same?

Mr. Rowe: The tide is beginning to come in. The enthusiasm of young people for the United Kingdom youth parliament has outrun the available resources. I am grateful to the Under—Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is no longer in his place, for what little in the way of resources has been given to those of us who want to establish the parliament. However, the body will be established: it will change the face of the country and do a great deal to engage people not with party politics but with the stuff of politics. In that way, we can try to make society work better.
Access to the health service also needs to be looked at carefully. The move to consulting the consumer is in some ways welcome, but we are in danger of allowing the consumer's preference to outrun common sense. For example, many beds in the national health service are blocked because families are given a choice about which home their elderly relatives can be sent to. Although the choice is often severely limited, no placement in a particular home has to be accepted. Families pay nothing while their elderly or sick relative is in hospital, but they may have to pay top-up fees when that relative moves into a home. There is therefore a perverse incentive that leads to beds being blocked. We need to look at that and similar problems very carefully.
Finally, I turn to the question of consultants. We should honour the dedication, hard work and expertise that many consultants display, but we should also be extremely tough when consultants say that they will not work with a colleague but refuse to help health trusts by putting their reasons in writing. As a result of such behaviour, a health trust may have to spend as much as £1.25 million of patients' money which it can ill afford to get rid of a person with whom consultants will not work. Defensive practices such as that are out of date and improper.

Mr. Bill Rammell: I shall be brief, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
My first comments are addressed to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who, in his typically robust contribution, made some of the repetitive errors for which he is known. He spoke about exclusions from school. I do not propose that violent and disruptive pupils should not be removed from school, under certain circumstances. However, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was right to point out that there is a danger that the difficulty may be exaggerated.
That exaggeration is a persistent problem among Conservative Members and their spokespeople. During the 18 years of the Conservative Government, there was a deliberate attempt to denigrate state education and to encourage people to move to the private sector. The constant harping on the problem of violence in state schools is part of a pattern.
Although care must be taken with the targets set for the reduction in exclusions from schools, anyone who talks to head teachers knows that league tables make schools conscious of their exclusion rates, and that schools can use those rates to manage their position in the league table. Any Government who did not take that into account and did not try to reduce exclusions would be irresponsible. Excluding pupils without offering them any alternative forms of education merely stores up social problems for the future.

Mr. David Taylor: The private school nearest to the House is Westminster school. Its head teacher has excluded many final-year students as a result of behaviour that was reported in both the national and the international press. Is it not clear that the problem of exclusion is therefore not confined to state schools in difficult areas?

Mr. Rammell: It certainly is not, and that is in line with my critique of the contribution from the hon. Member for Buckingham. The hon. Gentleman displayed breathtaking nerve when he criticised the Government for increasing the amount of regulation. Anyone visiting a school during the 18 years of Conservative Government was regaled by teachers with stories of the never-ending regulation and coercion to which they were subjected by that Government. We have rightly focused on standards and on the necessary regulations. However, I welcome the fact that the Government are listening to what schools and teachers are saying, and are seeking to remove some of that regulation.
I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the percentage of national wealth invested in education under this Government. Who was it who talked about lies, damned lies and statistics? First, the percentage of national wealth that is invested in education depends greatly on the performance of the economy. In a booming economy, as we have at the moment, a percentage of national wealth invested in education means vastly more money being invested in schools than happened under a Government who went through the two worst recessions since the second world war.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: In a while.
Secondly, anybody can play with the figures. The key judgment for electors is what a Government inherit and what they have done by the end of their period in office. It is incontestable that, by the end of this Government's period of office, we will be investing a higher proportion of national income in education than the proportion that we inherited when the Conservatives left office on 1 May 1997.
We then heard from the hon. Gentleman a sustained diatribe against the new deal. I take exception to that, because I passionately believe, from talking to young people, that the new deal is the first sustained, properly funded scheme for the long-term unemployed that we have seen in this country in a generation. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the rate of decrease in terms of long-term youth unemployment was less now than it was between 1993 and 1997. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I do not doubt that, because we are moving towards full employment. We have dramatically reduced unemployment. As we move towards full employment, of course the rate of decrease will reduce. This way of playing with statistics to present a false impression leads to great concern.
I recently held an event at the House of Commons for employers in my constituency to focus on the opportunities to be obtained by the new deal. Unbeknown to me, a young woman from British Airports Authority, who works at Stansted airport, was there. She had been unemployed for six months; she felt that she had no hope, no opportunity. She went on the new deal, and is now the personal assistant to one of the directors at BAA at Stansted. That example demonstrates that the new deal is working.
We also heard about the national health service. Lectures from the Conservative party about our stewardship of the national health service are very difficult to take. If we consider in detail what happened under the previous Government for 18 years, we see that there were erratic increases in funding. There were a couple of good years here and there in terms of increased investment, normally as we were coming up to a general election, but in some years, the real-terms increase in funding was as little as 0.4 per cent.
The difference that people are seeing under this Government is sustained, continuing investment so that we can begin to tackle problems such as the bed blocking to which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred and some of the problems involving consultants. Sustained investment, over the longer term, needs to take place so that we can provide the kind of health service that people want.

Mr. Bercow: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not dispute the fact that the Government are responsible for a shortfall of about £13 billion in terms of their manifesto commitment to increasing expenditure on education. He did not cavil at that charge against the Government.
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is aware that, in the majority of cases, the new deal is not producing sustained, unsubsidised jobs, and that the majority of people going on the scheme are finding jobs for a short period but are then coming out of work again?

Mr. Rammell: When we launched the new deal, nobody ever said that we would guarantee a job to


everybody when they came out of the scheme. The new deal is, however, providing opportunities where previously none existed.
Liberal Democrat Members focused on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's comments. I think that my right hon. Friend was absolutely right to make those comments about the Laura Spence case. He was rightly identifying an example of a superbly qualified young woman, who was adequately qualified for entrance to Oxford university, but did not get in. That case highlighted a problem. If it was an isolated example, we could ignore it, but I do not believe that it is. I remember the example, which gained national newspaper coverage, of a young woman in my constituency who applied to Oxbridge, and was ridiculed at the interview not because of her qualifications, her intelligence or her ambition, but because of her accent.
In addition to those specific examples, an independent report this week shows that children and young people from state schools are significantly under-represented compared with what we would expect, given their qualifications. We have a real problem. There are young people who have ambition and talent and are adequately qualified, but because of historical reasons and prejudices, they are not getting access to our best universities.

Mr. David Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so generously again. Is not one way of tackling some of those difficulties, as suggested by a former deputy leader of this party, to remove some of the huge tax concessions given to private schools which make their performance so attractive to the better-off section of society.

Mr. Bercow: The old left returns.

Mr. Rammell: Whether it is old left or new left, that issue needs consideration. We want to ensure that there is fairness and equality in the system.
There are further concerns regarding higher and further education, and a lot of it comes down to funding. I welcome the fact that we are introducing educational maintenance allowances at the age of 16. All my discussions with young people from poorer backgrounds indicate that the real determinant of whether someone goes on to further and higher education comes at 16. That is the point at which the young person has to be supported, out of work, through the family. It is absolutely right to bring in those allowances and I want to see them expanded as quickly as possible.
We must also face up to the threat of top-up fees that is being pressed rigorously by the Russell group of top universities. If they had their way, we would have the prospect of fees of £7,000 or £8,000 a year. This has already been tried out in Australia, where it has had a catastrophic effect on access.
It is particularly instructive to see the Conservative amendment criticising tuition fees. The Conservatives supported the Dearing inquiry, which imposed tuition fees. In addition, those of us who served in Committee on the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 remember the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dowell)

explicitly arguing for the opportunity for top-up fees to be available to institutions. Given that, the Conservative amendment is duplicitous in the extreme.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: No, I need to make some progress.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough did not allow me to intervene on him earlier, so I must make this point now. I listened carefully to his impassioned attack on tuition fees, not only top-up fees, introduced by the Government. Logically, that would mean that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of abolishing tuition fees. However, we should not judge people only by what they say but by their alternative Budget statements. The Liberal Democrats' alternative Budget statement contains no reference to doing away with tuition fees.
It is just like the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings. Liberal Democrats go round the country making claims and statements, yet when they have the opportunity, in their detailed alternative Budget, to say where the money would come from and how it would be raised, they are completely silent. Not only is that a problem for the Liberal Democrats as a political party: it does a disservice to those of us who believe in progressive taxation and believe that we have to be honest with people about how we intend to raise the money.
The Chancellor's comments rightly highlighted a real concern in Britain. There are still significant parts of British society that are not accessible to children and young people who come from ordinary backgrounds in state schools. Look at the judiciary, the BBC, our best universities, the civil service, and then look at the number of people working in those institutions who have gone to public school. We have a real problem: the Chancellor was right to highlight it, and we ignore that problem for our young people and our community at our peril.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) for giving up his opportunity to speak so that I might do so. I realise that several Members wanted to speak in the debate, but were somewhat squeezed out by earlier contributions.
I shall focus on a slightly different aspect of the debate: equal opportunities for older people—or rather, issues of age discrimination and the lack of opportunity for those people. Those issues are undoubtedly real and significant—whether a manager is denied promotion because she is labelled too old; or carers are denied about £14 extra a week merely because they are over 65; or a frail elderly patient is starved to death for want of proper care and attention in a hospital.
When it comes to age discrimination—the denial of opportunity to older people—the Government are still clinging, wrongly, to the idea that a voluntary approach is the way to fix it. I shall explore why that approach has not worked and why we need serious legislation on the matter.
In the past, the House has taken steps to outlaw discrimination on grounds of gender, race or disability. Those laws played a crucial role in changing attitudes in


our society. They drew a line and set a benchmark against which behaviour could be judged. As a result, they changed our society. Age discrimination clearly exists in almost all aspects of our life. I shall dwell on two: the workplace and health care.
On the first, a survey of secretaries, published earlier this year by the Employers Forum on Age, found that nine in 10 secretaries believed that ageism exists in the workplace. One in three felt that they had been rejected for a job because of age. Nine in 10 believed that they stood little chance of finding a new job when they reached the age of 45.
When the Institute of Management surveyed its members, it found that half of those surveyed used age as a criteria for making employment decisions. Those businesses are operating foolish and short-sighted policies. They are throwing people on to the scrap heap; they are throwing away human capital and the corporate memory of their organisation.
During the first half of this Parliament, the Government set their face against legislation to combat age discrimination. They preferred to tread the path of a voluntary code, but that code is not working. Is it delivering change? Even the Government's own research, conducted by NOW for the Department for Education and Employment, cast doubt on whether the voluntary approach was working. The survey found that there had been no change whatever in the employment policies of the employers surveyed. Nine in 10 employers were not even aware of the existence of the code of practice that the Government had introduced to encourage age diversity in employment practice.
The Government often say that they do not want to introduce legislation on this matter because they do not want to impose extra burdens on employers. There is concern that employers do not want legislation. However, research shows conclusively that employers believe that there is a case for legislation. Last year, a survey of members of the Institute of Directors found that six in 10 were in favour of legislation on age discrimination. Earlier research by the Institute of Management found that eight in 10 of their members favoured legislation. Even the Federation of Small Businesses would support legislation as long as it was clear and simple.
The voluntary approach is not enough in the workplace. It is certainly not enough in health care. An overwhelming body of evidence shows that there is ageism in the national health service. A Gallup poll, commissioned by Age Concern and published last March, found that one in 20 of over-65s had been refused treatment. Two in 20 felt that their NHS treatment was different after they turned 50. Even the Department of Health found evidence of age discrimination and ageist assumptions in the provision of health care. A review of renal services found that two thirds of kidney patients aged over 70 were refused dialysis or transplants. An audit of cardiac services found that four in 10 post-heart attack rehab programmes imposed arbitrary age limits.
A survey of general practitioners conducted by Age Concern found that one in three GPs believed that age-based rationing occurred in our health service. One GP said:
In hospital, you have to be able to feed yourself as the nurses don't do it. If you are frail, you've had it.
That is hardly a surprise. More and more older people are admitted to fewer and fewer beds for shorter and shorter stays. That is not the decision of the Labour Government,

but an inheritance from the previous Conservative Government—a health service that is so determined to get people in and out of beds quickly that there is no time to focus on quality of care and attention to detail.
Recently, my attention, and that of many people—Members and those outside this place—has been drawn to the inappropriate use of not-for-resuscitation orders. There is a massive gap between the guidelines for the use of such orders and actual practice. The case of Jill Barker, a 67-year-old cancer patient, drew that to our notice. It highlighted the fact that her medical records had been marked with an NFR order—those initials are used. That was in breach of the guidelines produced by the British Medical Association and reconfirmed by the Department of Health. There had been a serious breach of faith—one that many people feel needs to be tackled. Indeed, that case produced many more examples of the inappropriate use of NFR orders on people's medical records.
Research reported in the British Medical Journal found that two in three patients are not even consulted when NFR orders are placed on their medical records. An even more alarming statistic is that patients who have NFR on their records are 30 times more likely to die than those who do not. When they are not even consulted about that decision, it begs questions about the way in which our health service is working.
I have raised NFR orders in the House on several occasions—through debates, questions and early-day motions. I have been appalled by the complacency of the Government's response. They rely on guidance that was issued more than a year ago and are not prepared to address the problems being raised by Age Concern and others.
Because of ageist assumptions in employment practices, in our health service and in many other aspects of life, it is time that comprehensive legislation to tackle age discrimination was on our statute book. Such measures would have a positive impact. They would address the growing concern about the way that we treat our elderly people. The absence of such legislation—when it exists on gender, race and disability—downgrades for many people the importance we should be attaching to dealing with age discrimination. It sends the wrong signals.
For that reason, I hope that the Government will give up the voluntary approach and seriously address the need to establish a proper legislative framework that will confirm that we recognise that there is no place whatever for ageism in this country.

Mr. Don Foster: As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), said in his opening remarks, the debate is important. It has certainly been wide ranging. After the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), we heard a thoughtful speech from the Minister, to which I shall return in a moment. We then heard a rather lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I shall not be able to answer all the questions he put, because he asked for our views on a range of matters—from the new deal to red tape and bureaucracy in schools. We are in favour of one and against the other, but I can provide him with more details later if he wants them.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made impassioned speeches. Although they are on opposite sides of the House, I felt a great deal of sympathy for both of them. The hon. Member for Corby was especially concerned to achieve the best possible start for all his constituents. He wanted open and equal access, and I am sure that we would all agree with him on that.
The speech with which I was most in agreement was made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He did not utter a word for which I would not offer wholehearted support. We should all support and be grateful for his long campaigns for Community Service Volunteers and for the right of young people to be heard.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) made an interesting speech. I agreed with some of his points and disagreed with others. However, may I point out in the gentlest possible way that it is important to carry out research before one makes a speech? He said that Liberal Democrats had not referred to the abolition of tuition fees in our recent statement on the Budget, and he said that we had not costed our proposal. Unfortunately for him, I have a copy of the statement, which categorically states that our programme includes:
Abolishing university tuition fees up to and including undergraduate level and introducing "hardship benefit" payments in order to increase access.
The costing for that proposal appears at the end of the document. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I hope he does not think that I have mysteriously created from scratch, and in such a short space of time, a whole document just to prove him wrong. I shall send him a copy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the important issue of age discrimination. I have also raised it from time to time, not least in relation to job advertisements. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pursuing the issue with such vigour.
It has to be admitted that the Government were elected on a tide of good will and high expectations from many people in this country. They thought that they had elected a Government who would help the poor, the pensioners, the lone parents, the socially excluded, those stuck on run-down, crime-ridden housing estates, and those marooned in rural villages with no buses. They thought that they had elected a Government who would come to the rescue of all of those who had been sidelined in the Tory years.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly said in his speech, the Government have taken action on some of those issues. Our concern—the principal concern of the debate—is that the Government's actions have been limited; they have not gone far enough. The Government have been too timid in their thinking and they have failed to grasp some of the real problems that exist. They have been too timid on the social justice agenda.
There appears to be almost a sense of partial denial by the Government. From time to time, they spot an issue and pick it up. The Minister, in his thoughtful speech, was willing to accept the genuine concern about the many elderly people who die from the cold. He said that that was a national disgrace. He also acknowledged that there

needs to be more joined-up Government thinking to address some of the issues. He added that unemployment was still too high, despite the work that has been done and he acknowledged that no one should be complacent and that much needed to be done. I welcome that.
The problem is that the Government take a semi-myopic approach. They notice and recognise issues when that suits them, but they pretend that they do not exist at other times. As we know, the Prime Minister has tried to deny the existence of a north-south divide and he seems to think that everything that the Government are doing for pensioners is wonderful. He seems to suggest that those living in rural areas should be glad that they have such pleasant surroundings in which to live and that there is no crisis on our farms. The Government tell us that they are doing wonderful things in the health service, but why do we still have a postcode lottery three years into a Labour Government? Why can one receive certain drugs and treatments in some parts of the country, but not in others?
There are areas of selective myopia. However, when it suits the Government they invent a crisis for their own benefit. That is exactly what we had with the case of Laura Spence, when she could not get into Magdalen college, Oxford. Suddenly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer magically became an expert on how to choose the cleverest five applicants out of 23, all of them with top grades. The best reporting of that incident that I have come across was by my noble Friend Earl Russell in another place. He recently wrote an article which I thought I had here, but which seems to have disappeared. However, his point was simply that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to believe that there is a system that can perfectly select students merely on the basis of examination results, or even predicted examination results. Reality is not like that. We all know that, in a highly competitive system, we cannot guarantee that those with the best predicted grades will get the top jobs. If that were the case, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be the Prime Minister, not the present incumbent.
The key point is that this issue should be left to the professionals to decide using their expertise. I am delighted that, in the two weeks that the Prime Minister has had off, he has had the opportunity to reflect. Although it was much derided by his audience, he made some very good points in his speech to the Women's Institute. He said:
I think we in government—and that means me—have to trust people more.
At long last, he is perhaps beginning to understand that it should be the job of the Government to set the framework and to provide the resources. They should then let the professionals—be they in health care, education and even in the selection of students for universities—get on and do their job.

Mr. Rammell: Let us put to one side the Laura Spence case. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a real problem with the under-representation of children from state schools at Oxford and Cambridge, given what one would expect from their qualifications?

Mr. Foster: I do not disagree that an issue needs to be addressed. However, the problem is how the issue was addressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is our concern.
The Prime Minister seems to have seen the light in his speech to the Women's Institute today—two weeks on paternity leave has had a great effect on him. He said:
We don't have to fight over every headline.
Perhaps that will mean that the Chancellor of Exchequer will not seek to get headlines, but that we shall have a sensible approach to the problem that the hon. Member for Harlow rightly highlighted.
It is clear to Liberal Democrats that the solution to that problem is to raise standards in the state education system, One reason why it is difficult to do that and create a level playing field is that the independent sector spends twice as much per pupil as the Government spend per pupil in the state school sector. They are partly tackling the problem with some additional money, but their announcement that they will spend £19 billion would make any double-entry bookkeeper blush.
The Government are making some progress but, despite that, class sizes in secondary schools are at their biggest for 20 years, and class sizes are rising in nursery and junior schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly pointed out, and despite what the Minister said, the amount of money that is spent per university or further education student is falling under this Government.
There is the issue of how we solve the problem of entry into Oxford and Cambridge. The solution is increased investment in our education service and trusting the professionals in that service to get on and do their job. However, the problem also relates to how we can make more people interested in entering higher education institutions. It is a little odd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be so concerned about the issue when he is a member of a Government who introduced the very tuition fees that discourage some people from entering higher education.
I have referred to selective myopia, and it affects many different issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West rightly expressed his concern about the plight of pensioners and the elderly. They—and many people who speak on their behalf—are angry at the pitiful 75p increase in the state pension. There is an urgent need to do more about that.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is building an impressive charge on selective myopia. However, is he not also revealing amnesia on a grand scale in relation to the proposals on pensions in the manifesto on which his party fought the election? The Liberal Democrats' commitment to pensions was significantly less than ours. Indeed, we have already exceeded our aims in three years of government.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and has selective myopia. He clearly did not read in its entirety our documentation on the additional increases that we would be prepared to make to pensioners over 75 and, indeed, over 80. I urge him to watch this space for further developments.
At least we are developing thinking on giving pensioners even better support. The Conservative party's offer is disappointing. Expert analysis of its recent announcement on pensions shows it to be nothing like the exciting bonanza that Conservative Members would have us believe. In reality, that bonanza amounts to a magical

increase of 43p a week for pensioners, once their free television licences and winter fuel payments have been removed, and reductions have been made in many areas of the budget, with money being taken from the new deal for lone parents and the social fund budget being slashed.
The Government's myopia on the north-south divide is even more staggering. The Prime Minister recently sought to persuade us that there is no such divide, despite all the statistics. Disposable income per head in the north-east is almost a third lower than that in the south-east. Seventy-five per cent. of households in the north-east receive some form of welfare benefit, compared with only 63 per cent. in the south. Jobs in the north-east are growing at a rate of 1 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. growth in the south-east, and so on. Today, the Office for National Statistics demonstrated that, whether rich or poor, people in the north of England are more likely to die early than those in the south. Even so, the Prime Minister still wishes to deny the existence of the gap.

Ms Julia Drown: rose—

Mr. Foster: I shall not give way, as I have little time in which to finish my speech.
The Minister referred to housing and expressed concern about keeping elderly people warm. However, what have the Government done about the 5.4 million people living in fuel poverty? They appear to have solved the problem for 1.1 million by doing nothing other than changing a definition. Since their time in opposition, the Government have changed their position and magically removed 1.1 million people from the total of those in fuel poverty. However, millions are still in such poverty and we are not doing enough about that. We could do simple things, such as setting a lower rate of value added tax on house renovation and new build, so that people do not pay the full VAT rate when they try to repair their crumbling buildings.
Finally, on transport, people in rural areas are suffering from many problems, such as closures of shops, post offices and village pubs. The poorest in those areas do not have access to a car and depend on rural transport, but the Government are spending £270 million less on public transport than the Tories were when they left office.
Thinking must be far more imaginative if we are to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and tackle the poverty of those living in rural and urban areas. The Government promised us that 1999 would be a year of delivery. However, it appears that their cheque is still in the post and, sadly, we must still mind the gap.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): Whatever the Liberal Democrats' intentions in choosing this subject, I can tell them that Labour Members very much welcome the chance to debate equal opportunities and inequalities in our country because nothing exposes the dividing lines between the political parties more than inequality. It is one of the key lines along which party policy divides, thereby enabling people to see clearly the different values, principles, approaches and prescriptions on which Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat politics are based. Inequality takes us


back to the basic politics that each party stands for. Today we have certainly seen those basic political positions set out in stark contrast, and that is helpful.
The Tories, in so far as they even recognise inequality, clearly see it as the natural order and something that they do not have to do very much about—except of course to make it worse, as they did when they were in government. The Liberal Democrats still have the old-style handout mentality. They would give people a crutch but would not tackle the fundamental processes in society that lead to inequality. That is the first-aid approach of sticking on a plaster in the form of extra cash but failing to face the hard choices necessary to remedy some of the causes of inequality.
The Liberal Democrats do not understand that opportunity and responsibility go hand in hand—not because we say that they do, but because that is what people want. That is what we want, and people who experience inequality are no different. Cash on its own will not lead to long-term change. People want opportunities that enable them to take responsibility for their own lives, rather than being beholden to a benefits system.
Labour, by contrast, understands the deep-rooted causes of inequality and the fact that it is not one-dimensional because inequality in unemployment and income connects with inequality in health, educational underachievement and housing, and even in the length of one's life. Some Liberal Democrat Members recognise that. Opportunity is not distributed equally in our society, and while some groups have a wealth of opportunity, others have opportunity poverty. For too many people, where they are born, their family and their circumstances at birth are still powerful determinants of where they end up in adult life.
The way to tackle the fundamental change that is needed is therefore the hand-up, not the handout. We must ensure that the systems that we can influence—education, the economy, health and housing—enable all people to grow, to develop and to grasp the opportunities that exist.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was the only Opposition Member to acknowledge the extent of inequality that we inherited after 20 years of Tory Government. Inequality widened and deepened substantially under the Tories. In 1997, the mortality of infants born to unskilled parents was still almost twice that of those born to professional parents. Those in the lower half of the income distribution received a quarter of all total income—which is also the amount that the top 10 per cent. received.
More than three in five children were living in a household where neither parent was in full-time work and where the income was below 60 per cent. of the median. Fewer than one in 10 individuals living in a household headed by people with black, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origins were in the top fifth of the income distribution. Local education authorities with high proportions of children eligible for school meals had significantly lower GCSE attainment levels than those with low free-school-meal eligibility. Perhaps the most chilling statistic of all is that an unskilled man had a 20 per cent. chance of surviving past retirement age and seeing something of his old age, while a professional man's chance of doing so was 80 per cent.
Those are not Government statistics; they come from the Office for National Statistics report on social inequalities, which was published last month. Their importance lies in the extent of inequality that they reveal over the period to which they relate and in what inequality means both for people and society. My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Corby (Mr. Hope) gave some graphic and human detail of what inequalities mean for peoples' lives and how the Government are trying to address them.
The quality of life for each of the individuals and families affected by such circumstances is poorer than it should be or need be. There is a lost opportunity to make a better life for those individuals and their families. The children concerned face an uphill struggle to realise their potential, and many never do so. There is also a lost opportunity for society as a result of the failure to capitalise on the wealth of talent and human resources that is available to us. There is therefore a failure to maximise the growth potential and strength of our economy.
The policy of the Liberal Democrats on inequality has become clearer today, both in the Chamber and from the contributions of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on the "Today" programme this morning. He said that their approach to inequality is, first, that we should be putting more money into state education, welfare, the health service and pensions, for example. Secondly, he said that we should be promoting the liberty and freedom of the individual and liberating the community at the expense of the state. The only sense I can make from that is that Liberal Democrat policy is merely to throw money at problems and then leave matters to sort themselves out.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments this morning on his own experiences were perhaps more revealing. He said:
I will take you to my own personal circumstances. I went to a local state primary school, a local comprehensive secondary school, the University of Glasgow and then on a Fulbright scholarship in the United States. I did all that on the basis of competing on a fair and equal basis with other candidates.
I do not know whether he believes this, but it sounds as if he is saying that it does not make any difference to anyone's chances if he or she is brought up in a poor area of Glasgow, for example, instead of Fort William. We fundamentally disagree with that. It is not enough to provide fair and open competition. If we are to address inequality, we must help people to become more able to take the opportunities that arise.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I hesitate to interrupt a fascinating life story. However, I bring to the Minister's attention the consideration that were it not for the state sector and comprehensive education, I would not have had the chance of tertiary education. When I took up the chance of a scholarship in the United States, it was a valuable experience. At that stage, the best part of 20 years ago, the US was implementing precisely the student-funding approach that is now the Government's policy. In the mid-west, the one group of people who were not my contemporaries were those who were well heeled, from New York and California. There were very few of the poorer kids from the mid-west because the system


deterred them. That experience taught me a great deal. I wish it were an experience from which the Government would learn.

Ms Hughes: It seems not to have taught the right hon. Gentleman very much. He said that he got his scholarship competing
on a fair and equal basis with other candidates.
I am saying that fair and equal competition is not sufficient. It might be necessary, but if we are to help kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is not a sufficient condition to enable them to make the progress that clearly the right hon. Gentleman was able to make.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Hughes: No, I will not give way at this stage. I want to make more progress.
I am glad that we have achieved clarity, because so far the Liberal Democrats' stance on inequality has been confusing. They opposed the windfall tax to fund the new deal. They supported opportunity for the few but not for the vast majority. Their manifesto stated that they would increase pensions in line with prices, but now they are to be linked with wages. Perhaps if it had been a Lib Dem 75p increase, it would not have mattered so much. They said that they would put £200 million into health and education from their elastic 1p increase in income tax. So far, they have not matched our £40 billion.
Liberal Democrats accuse us of poverty of ambition and of timidity. However, when it comes to difficult choices, they run scared. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) gave us no more of the Lib Dem analysis of what is required than more cash, more cash and more cash. That is because they only have to make promises; they do not have to deliver.
We share with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough the belief that education is a key source of inequality as a result of underachievement, and that education is a key way out of deprivation. I do not share his party's views about how we will achieve real opportunity in education for everybody, but I acknowledge his commitment to education and to young people.
I cannot say the same of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It is amazing how often the quality of speeches is in inverse proportion to their length, and so it was this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman's speech was as bankrupt in substance as it was full of bluster. What he chose to speak about was interesting. In an extraordinarily long speech, he spent almost half an hour defending Oxford, Cambridge and grammar schools. He spent the rest of it—a relatively short time—rubbishing the national health service, public transport and the new deal.

Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that at least one saving grace was that the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) cleared the official Opposition's Benches, where three Members now reside? They are to be set against the scores of people who are interested in equality.

Ms Hughes: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that.
I must take the hon. Member for Buckingham to task, because he accused every other Member in the Chamber of ignorance. He said that the new deal was a failure and a waste of money. He added that it was not worth the effort and that it was not having any impact. However, by the end of March, 210,000 young people had moved into jobs through the new deal. To take up one of the hon. Gentleman's points, 73 per cent. of those jobs are sustainable, and 86 per cent. of them do not, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's claim, require subsidy.
It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman does not know that in December two reports were published on the macro-economic evaluation of the new deal for young people. The evaluation was undertaken by a conglomerate of five independent research organisations. One of the findings was that unemployment is much lower as a result of the new deal. The independently conducted research confirms that half of those leaving unemployment since the new deal began would not have done so without it. The evaluation of the new deal is the most robust of any labour market programme. The report is free, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read it. He may learn something, but it will not be humility.
The Government's approach is in stark contrast to those of the Conservative party and the Lib Dems. We have set ourselves the goal of ensuring that there is opportunity for all, and unreservedly attacking social exclusion. There should be opportunity for all alongside responsibility from all.
The Labour party was born out of the conviction and from the experience of many of its members that inequality and lack of opportunity are unjust, divisive and a waste of human potential. Many Labour Members and some Opposition Members come from backgrounds where only a few have the opportunities that enabled us to achieve something like our potential and enjoy a wider range of opportunities in life. We are too well aware of many friends from childhood and members of our own families—sisters and brothers, who are no less able than ourselves—who did not have the key chances. The hon. Member for Buckingham finds that funny, but we would expect that from him, wouldn't we?
We see in our constituencies that things have not changed much for many of today's children. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby spoke graphically about that. The hard-working, decent people of this country want that to change. They want a society that is fair and just in which everyone has a chance to get on and make the best of themselves. They want the chance to use opportunities and then to go on and take responsibility for their own future, as we do and as the hon. Member for Buckingham does. However, that is a chance that he would like to deny to others.
Opportunity for all does not exist in Britain at the moment. Some people and some groups—people from poor backgrounds, women, people from minority ethnic communities, disabled people—face barriers that others do not. They all face barriers and old-fashioned attitudes that should have no place in a modern society—the sort of attitudes we have seen today from the one Member of the Tory party who spoke from the Front Bench.
We are determined to lift those barriers, and we make no apology for that. That is the proper job of a proper Government. It is what sets the Labour Government apart from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats.
We are not leaving barriers in place like the Tories, or preferring to look the other way, or giving a quick fix that fizzles out, like the Liberal Democrats, but enabling people, through opportunities, to exercise the same choices and to take the same personal responsibilities that we all expect.
The Government are working hard in a systematic and sustained way to change Britain, to lift the barriers for all and to enable individuals and families whom we are concerned about—unlike Opposition Members—to reach their full potential, enabling them to take responsibility for their futures and, in so doing, to contribute as much as they can to this country's future. I urge Members to oppose the motion and to support the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 249.

Division No. 219]
[7.1 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Burnett, John
Oaten, Mark


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Fearn, Ronnie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Gidley, Sandra
Welsh, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Tom Brake.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Browne, Desmond


Alexander, Douglas
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burgon, Colin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Caton, Martin


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cawsey, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Chaytor, David


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clelland, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clwyd, Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Coffey, Ms Ann


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cohen, Harry


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Coleman, Iain





Colman, Tony
Jamieson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jenkins, Brian


Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbett, Robin



Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corston, Jean
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Crausby, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Kelly, Ms Ruth



Kemp, Fraser


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Khabra, Piara S


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darvill, Keith
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dismore, Andrew
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
Lock, David


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Drown, Ms Julia
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McDonnell, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McFall, John


Edwards, Huw
McIsaac, Shona


Efford, Clive
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McNulty, Tony


Ennis, Jeff
MacShane, Denis


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Flynn, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Martlew, Eric


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Merron, Gillian


Fyfe, Maria
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Galloway, George
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Gardiner, Barry
Mitchell, Austin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Godsiff, Roger
Morley, Elliot


Goggins, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Morris, Rt Hon Sir Jon (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mountford, Kali


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mudie, George


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Gunnell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Norris, Dan


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Brien, Milk (N Warks)


Healey, John
Olner, Bill


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David
Pendry, Tom


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pike, Peter L


Hope, Phil
Pond, Chris


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr Kim
Pound, Stephen


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Humble, Mrs Joan
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Quinn, Lawrie






Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Ward, Ms Claire


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wareing, Robert N


Singh, Marsha
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Speller, John
Wills, Michael


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stevenson, George
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stoate, Dr Howard



Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Clive Betts and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that true opportunity for all requires that access to higher education should be based on merit not background; welcomes the measures the Government has implemented to widen access as part of the record increase in education spending of 8 per cent. in real terms in this year alone; and welcomes the many initiatives taken to help those in society whose needs are greatest, including an extra £950 a year for older pensioners on low incomes and a record increase in NHS spending of an extra £2 billion this year, plus 6.1 per cent. average growth year on year until 2004.

Britain's Strategic Interests

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives; is concerned that the opportunities for a reduction in nuclear weapons have been prejudiced by the refusal of the United States Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and by the proposal that the United States should deploy a system of National Missile Defence, if necessary in breach of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; welcomes the 'unequivocal' declaration of the five permanent members of the Security Council that they will seek to eliminate all nuclear weapons in fulfilment of their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to state, first, what its policy is towards the United States proposal for National Missile Defence and, secondly, what steps it proposes to take to fulfil its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons; congratulates the armed forces of the Crown on their successful military campaigns in Kosovo and Sierra Leone but expresses disappointment that in the latter case Her Majesty's Government has chosen to deploy UK forces independently of the United Nations peacekeeping force and not as part of it and thereby failed to strengthen the UN effort and to enhance its credibility; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to publish the policy criteria by which it determines that there is a need for intervention.
One of the more trite judgments of contemporary security analysis is that, after the chilling certainty of mutually assured destruction, which was removed by the end of the cold war, the world has become a more unpredictable and equally dangerous place. It is said with some justification that inertia has been replaced by volatility.
If we look back to the cold war, we will remember that the strategy was simple, and even simplistic. It was essentially that of mutually assured destruction. However, in the new security environment, which we accept as being much more volatile and much more unpredictable, what is the strategy that a medium-ranking economic power such as the United Kingdom should pursue?
One of the lessons that we learned from the cold war was that collective action through NATO was essential to success and even to survival. I believe that it is equally true in the new environment that collective action through NATO, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and in particular the European security and defence identity is the best way by which to ensure our security. Just as unilateralism was rejected in the cold war, so it should be rejected now.
I observe that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), is to respond to the debate. I remember the days when he had something of a flirtation with unilateral action. I remember when battle was joined in the seaside towns of England between the unilateralists and the multilateralists, but the hon. Gentleman has come, by a somewhat circuitous route, to the position that I and others occupied at that time. I am only sorry my right hon.


Friend Lord Steel, with whom he had many jousts in the seaside towns of England, is not present this evening to observe at first hand this most remarkable of conversions.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: I should like to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
There is an alarming drift towards unilateral action in international affairs. The failure of the United States Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty—the CTBT—and the determination of the United States to press ahead with a system of ballistic missile defence in apparent breach of the anti-ballistic missile treaty are both disturbing and destabilising features of a determination on the part of the Americans to go it alone, compounded by American unwillingness to endorse the International Criminal Court and the procrastination in the United States in accepting the need to ban the deployment of land mines.
That seems a paradox at a time when the United States is the only military superpower left, and the threat to the interests of the United States has never been less.
Our own Government are not immune from this apparent trend. British forces have done well in Sierra Leone, but they deployed independently of the United Nations, and although they appear to be directing the activities of the UN force, they are not yet part of that force. Of course, they have secured the temporary credibility of the UN in Sierra Leone by their intervention, but they would have assured its permanent effectiveness had they been part of it from the beginning.
After the disasters of Rwanda and Srebrenica, after Somalia, the inadequacies of the United Nations have been freely admitted by the Secretary-General himself. In those circumstances, the credibility and the reputation of UN peacekeeping in Sierra Leone are at stake—if the House will forgive the colloquialism, they are on the line. Another failure could destroy both credibility and reputation for a long time to come.
As a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power, with our long history of involvement in Sierra Leone, and indeed with the present Prime Minister's personal invitation to President Kabbah to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh some two years ago at a time when President Kabbah had been ousted—all these factors, which have been used to justify intervention in the way in the past few weeks, were equally powerful, and I would argue more powerful, reasons not just for intervention, but for our participation in the United Nations force.
It is disingenuous of the Government to deflect questions on the issue of national missile defence by saying that no request has yet been made for the use of Fylingdales, and that no decision will be taken until such a request is made. One does not have to go very far in the defence and security community in Washington to hear people say that there is rather more of an understanding about these matters than has ever been revealed to the House of Commons.
As the noble Lord Robertson, recently the Secretary of State for Defence, has acknowledged, national missile defence at the instigation of the Americans has the capacity to cause severe damage to NATO. More than that, it has the capacity to refuel a nuclear arms race, particularly in Asia.
Deployment of national missile defence could result in the Chinese deciding to increase their nuclear arsenal, with the risk of a corresponding and chilling escalation by India and Pakistan: the domino theory in reverse. The statement that the United Kingdom has no view on national missile defence leads me to the inevitable conclusion that reports of a material difference of opinion between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are unquestionably true. The amendment confirms that disingenuousness. It states that the Government
wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved.
A definition of motherhood and apple pie could be found in that pious assertion.
The House is entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for achieving those objectives of ensuring the preservation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and of strategic stability. What advice are the British Government giving their United States counterparts? So far, the House has not been favoured with a sufficiently frank statement of Government policy.
In my judgment, the determination to proceed with national missile defence rests on a flawed assessment of threat. Of course rogue states and deeply unpleasant regimes exist. However, we must ask ourselves whether they are so lacking in comprehension that they would threaten to use, or actually use, weapons of mass destruction against the overwhelming nuclear superiority of the United States. The classic definition of threat is capability plus intention. Rogue states may acquire the capability, but it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which they would have the intention.
If national missile defence is necessary to defend the United States, that means that deterrence is considered inadequate. Yet deterrence sustained us through the long watches of the cold war and prevented Saddam Hussein, who undoubtedly had the means of launching weapons of mass destruction, from doing that in the Gulf war. During the famous exchange between James Baker, who was then Secretary of State in the United States Government, and that extraordinary survivor, Mr. Tariq Aziz, James Baker said that, if weapons of mass destruction were used, the response would be disproportionate. The precise nature of the response was never made clear, but those in Baghdad who skulked in their shelters could not exclude the possibility that the use of weapons of mass destruction would have triggered a nuclear response.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the extraordinary book by Richard Butler? There is no reason why he should have read it because it was only published a fortnight ago. The first pages outline the surmise that the continental United States was under considerable threat from the biological weapons of Saddam Hussein. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman happy that such an unlikely premise formed the basis of a cruel action against Iraq?

Mr. Campbell: I have the advantage of having met Mr. Butler on several occasions. Along with some of my


hon. Friends, I have had the opportunity of discussing such matters with him. Mr. Butler takes a rather robust view of foreign policy. It may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I have more sympathy for, and confidence in, Mr. Butler's analysis of those matters than that of many other commentators. After the promotion of Mr. Rolf Ekeus, Mr. Butler had the responsibility of being the United Nations representative on such matters. I have more than a sneaking suspicion that much of his analysis is correct. We should take careful account of Mr. Butler's words when, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Kuwait, we consider our future attitude towards Saddam Hussein and the regime in Baghdad.
Much in the current nuclear environment is welcome, especially the Duma's ratification of the strategic arms reduction treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty. It would be a tragedy if that more favourable environment were soured by unilateral action by the United States on national missile defence. I therefore welcome the declaration in the margins of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty discussions a few weeks ago in New York by the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. They declared their intention to seek the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was described as an unequivocal declaration.
That unequivocal declaration to pursue the elimination of all nuclear weapons must be matched by action if it is not to encourage the climate of cynicism that allowed India and Pakistan to justify the enhancement of their nuclear capability and to escape all too easily from the subsequent political condemnation.
I was disappointed in the Secretary of State for Defence, who, shortly after the encouraging declaration, said on a television programme that we should not hold our breath. In response to a probing question from Sir David Frost, he said that action would take place not next week, not next month and not next year. When we consider the United Kingdom's strategic interests, we are entitled to ask the Government to outline their proposals for implementing the undertaking, and when we may expect some evidence of it.
In the light of the National Audit Office report and that of the Ministry of Defence, which was published this week, there are important lessons to learn from the deployment to Kosovo. However, I am unconvinced by the reluctance of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to endorse in its report, which was published today, the principle of justified humanitarian intervention.
International law did not begin or end with the United Nations charter. As the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, recently acknowledged, we should be less concerned with the sovereignty of the state and more concerned with that of the individual. However, we are entitled to ask ourselves about the criteria for intervention. There should be an informed debate about that in the House and the country. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene under the guise of moral authority when oil and diamonds are at issue but not when only lives are at stake. We must avoid being caricatured as those who intervene only for Europeans, and not for Africans. We will do that best by being clear and public about our criteria for intervention, and by publishing them if necessary.
I invite the Government to tell the House, the people of Britain and the three armed services the criteria that justify intervention. Let me suggest some principles that

should be taken into account. My list is not exhaustive, but it provides at least a reasonable basis for debate. Intervention is justified if there is systematic abuse of human rights; if action can be taken that is consistent with existing United Nations resolutions, if not expressly authorised by them; if all reasonable diplomatic efforts have been made and exhausted; if there is a reasonable prospect of success; and if the force to be used is proportionate and does not put our forces or civilians in the relevant country at undue risk. Those criteria should be accompanied by an acceptance that responsibility does not cease with military action.
My last point is prompted by the position in Kosovo, where a military success has not been followed by the political and economic effort and investment that were promised and are undoubtedly necessary for achieving a multi-ethnic society in that country. We are entitled to be proud of the military effort in Kosovo and, indeed, of the basis on which it was mounted, but we have reason for concern about the extent to which that effort has been followed through by systematic, well-funded, well-invested efforts to restore civil governance.
The concerted action taken through what used to be called the European security and defence identity, but which we must learn to call the European security and defence policy, is the next element to which I shall refer. I remember a former Conservative Whip, who is no longer a Member, telling an amused and slightly surprised House that his promotion to the Treasury Bench meant that he had escaped the anonymity of the Whips Office to reach the acronymity of the Ministry of Defence. We must talk of the ESDP, which provides a prime and compelling opportunity, as well as an obligation, for concerted action. If anyone doubts that, they have only to read today's newspaper reports of the observations of the principal policy adviser of Mr. George W. Bush. She has made it clear that an incoming Republican Administration would expect Europe to do much more for its own defence and that the tacit assumption that the United States will gallop over the hill to our rescue in all circumstances, like a modern equivalent of the 5th Cavalry, can no longer be regarded as universally valid.
The worry expressed by that adviser, which we should all share, was not that Europe will do too much, but that it will not do enough. That is why the prime emphasis in the agreement reached last year by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government on European defence was on capability. Capability may involve additional expenditure, although that is sometimes finessed in European capitals by saying that we must spend better rather than more. However, if we are to provide 60,000 troops capable of rapid deployment and being sustained for 12 months, that can be achieved only if they are properly funded and properly resourced. To those Conservative Members who have yet again exhibited the visceral anti-Europeanism that has become so much a part of their political philosophy, I say that the truth is that a strong ESDP will strengthen NATO, but a weak policy will damage it.
It is no secret that the Government's foreign policy is more palatable to the Liberal Democrats than that of their predecessors. I suppose that that damns them with faint praise, but there is a substance to that remark that dates back to the days when the Foreign Secretary and I made common cause on the extraordinary scandal of arms to Iraq, which seems to have passed from political


consideration and understanding all to quickly. The House of Commons, as Sir Richard Scott found, was deceived about what was essentially a policy change.
The Foreign Secretary's announcement that the Government and the Foreign Office, of which he had become the leader, intended to achieve a foreign policy with an ethical dimension was applauded from these Benches. However, it is fair to say—particularly on the sale and supply of arms—that we have a certain disappointment about progress. That means that on this and on every other occasion on which the opportunity presents itself, we shall not hesitate to hold the Government to their stated aspiration.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof
believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General.
Apart from the uncharitable reference to seaside resorts, I agree with much of what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. As usual, he was for the most part very sensible, especially in saying how much better Labour's foreign policy is than that of our Conservative predecessors. I am grateful to him for initiating this timely debate, which goes to the heart of the Government's foreign policy mission: a strong Britain working for the security and prosperity of its people in a changing world.
Defending British values of democracy and respect for human rights makes the world a safer place in which to live, travel and trade. We defend human rights and democracy for other people because those are the values that we demand for ourselves. We reject the cynical view that, because we cannot make the world perfect, we should stop trying to make it better. We cannot put everything right, but we can make a difference. Although we cannot do everything, that does not mean that we should do nothing.
The global interest is becoming the national interest. In the global age, it is in Britain's national interest to promote British values of freedom, democracy and economic modernisation. Promoting our values enhances our prosperity and reinforces our security. Regimes that govern by fear and repression will not achieve the creativity and the innovation essential for successful knowledge-based economies in the new century. Respect for human rights is not a luxury of growth, but the condition for it. Human rights make humans rich.
We are uniquely able to pursue our national interests through our global interests. As the only state that is a member of the G8, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth, and with a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, we play a pivotal role in world affairs. We are a bridge between Europe and America. By making Britain stronger in Europe, we make Britain stronger in the world.
We are internationalists, not nationalists. That is why we support the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the European Union. We are multilateralists, not unilateralists. That is why we play an active and leading role in supporting international treaties on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and press all other countries to do the same.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted that the Minister is a multilateralist. Can he explain how he reconciles that with his continuing membership of the definitely unilateralist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?

Mr. Hain: I wondered when that would come up, but I am happy to respond. I remain a rank and file member of CND, which has played an honourable role in the cause of nuclear disarmament. The fact that the policy in the manifesto on which the Government were elected is not unilateralist is not the point, and I shall not apologise for that membership, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. Without being diverted too far down that track, I say to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that there was a cold war during the seaside days to which he referred and people were unable to engage multilaterally—for example, in the way that Presidents Clinton and Putin did only a few days ago.
We stand up for Britain not through isolation, but through global engagement. Globalisation requires effective action in response to humanitarian crises. The Government believe that it is their duty to do what they can to deter aggression and defend our values by whatever means will make a difference, whether that is military muscle, constructive engagement or creative diplomacy. Our policy is based on four principles: force should always be the last resort; the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs; when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the international community should act; and any use of force must be collective, proportionate, likely to achieve its objective and carried out in accordance with international law.
Our intervention in Sierra Leone is an example of that approach. We have intervened to protect British nationals, to promote international peace and security, to support and improve a rules-based international order based on the UN and to act as a force for good in the world by defending democratic values and human rights. Sierra Leone clearly shows, too, that our country has global interests and values and a capability to make a positive impact across the world. As even Washington has told us, no other country has the rapid-reaction capability that enabled us to deploy forces so effectively and efficiently into such a remote and difficult African country within 48 hours.
We in Britain, however, cannot exercise our strategic responsibilities on our own. We could not have had the impact that we have had across the world without the


security that we enjoy at home, which NATO provides. But NATO has changed. NATO is not a cold war relic; it is one of our main tools for the provision of security and stability throughout Europe—through dialogue with Russia, through its partnership activities with 27 countries, and with its open-door policy.
The biggest change is the extension of NATO's active role in responding rapidly and effectively to crises. At last year's summit in Washington, the Government helped to secure changes in NATO's strategic concept to make crisis management one of the alliance's core tasks. In implementing the changes, Britain is ahead of most of our allies, owing to the very successful strategic defence review that we have implemented.
The NATO-led forces in Bosnia and Kosovo clearly show the advantages of effective, well-co-ordinated allied action.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister agree that lessons can be learned from our engagement in Kosovo? Does he share my distaste at the fact that Amnesty International has accused this Parliament, through its Government, of committing war crimes? Has he had a chance to read the Foreign Affairs Committee's report, which asks the Government to explain the reasons for the decisions to bomb the television station and the Chinese embassy?
As the Minister will recall, the Committee asked the Government for the right to discuss the issues with the intelligence services. We were not given that opportunity, and consequently we could not get to the bottom of the reasons. Will the Minister make a commitment on behalf of the Government? Can we remove the slur cast by the accusation of war crimes as a result of more information from the Government?

Mr. Hain: I acknowledge the hard work done by the hon. Gentleman on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the tough questioning to which he occasionally subjects me. I respect that.
There were no British war crimes. We will of course respond in detail to the questions and arguments posed by the Committee.
We are also helping to create a European security and defence capability, which will enable the European Union to respond better to the post-conflict needs of places such as Kosovo. That will neither undermine our United Nations role nor replace NATO's crisis management role; it will complement both.
Rather than creating divisions in the Atlantic alliance, this will strengthen the European contribution to NATO. American experts and politicians of all colours have called on us to build a stronger Europe for a stronger NATO, and we are doing just that, in a way that has ensured the provision of full transparency in respect of the United States Administration.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): As the Minister will know, the Assembly of the Western European Union is currently meeting in Paris. Can the Minister tell us anything about the British Government's attitude to the question of how the European defence and security system, transferred to the European Union, will retain a degree of parliamentary accountability to countries that are not members of the European Union? As I am sure

the Minister will appreciate, those countries are extremely exercised about the fact that they are about to be left out in the cold. They are, after all, as much a part of Europe as are EU countries. We must not have a two-class Europe in regard to defence matters, any more than we should have one in regard to any other matters.

Mr. Hain: I agree that we do not want a two-class Europe, but we do want a coherent defence capability, and—the hon. Gentleman nods in agreement—the European Union is clearly the most effective vehicle. I am sure that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be resolved, especially the concern of the people of the countries concerned to know what their Governments are doing.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I realise that there can be no instant response to the question that I am about to ask. However, the Minister will know of one way of dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). In matters such as this, NATO should always have the first option—the right of first refusal. What consideration have the Government given to that? It would take account not only of the American anxieties that have been expressed, but of the concerns felt by members of NATO that are not also members of the European Union.

Mr. Hain: There will always be discussion about that. What we did not want was any discrimination against members of NATO, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will sympathise with that.
Ultimately, conflicts need to be resolved at an international rather than a regional or national level. We want a strong, efficient, responsive United Nations that can build consensus among its members, and can deal decisively with crises. We have been leading the way to help reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, which does need modernising. As a permanent Security Council member, we support the UN's efforts across the globe to settle disputes, prevent conflicts and keep the peace.
We have actively backed the proposals of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, for international intervention for humanitarian purposes. He has called for the Security Council to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights should not be allowed. As he has said, no legal principle—not even national sovereignty—can ever shield crimes against humanity.
Last year, nearly 15,000 British soldiers and police took part in UN-led or UN-authorised missions, from Kosovo to Georgia. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the UN setting out the assets that we could make available for peacekeeping purposes, including rapid reaction forces. We are also engaged in important discussions about how the UN can develop its own rapid reaction capability.
We have taken the initiative in improving the way in which the UN runs its peacekeeping operations, and in formulating a set of guidelines for humanitarian action by the Security Council. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. As the Sierra Leone experience demonstrates, big improvements in UN peacekeeping operations are needed. We need better, tighter command and control structures, and better equipped and trained contributing forces.
Those problems underline the importance, in Africa especially, of having a regional socket into which the international community can plug. There must be an African ownership of peace agreements—whether in Sierra Leone or the Congo—for international deployment to be effective. That is why we are working with countries such as Nigeria in the west African regional group ECOWAS—the economic community of West African states—and with South Africa in the southern African development community, to enhance their defence and conflict prevention capabilities.
The United Nations also has a key role to play in meeting one of the most sinister threats facing us today—the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We have helped to achieve a number of important goals recently. We are taking a leading role in negotiations for a compliance protocol for the biological weapons convention, and to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is properly implemented. Where international regimes have not stopped proliferation, we are working with our allies to resist that, and to tackle the underlying causes of tension. We drafted and co-sponsored a December 1999 UN Security Council resolution establishing the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission on Iraq. We led the way to achieve an unprecedented agreement with the new agenda coalition of non-nuclear states, enabling us and the four other nuclear weapons states to pledge, at the nonproliferation treaty review conference that took place recently in New York, to work for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. We are serious about that commitment, and want to see early progress. Our hard work also confirmed the non-proliferation treaty as the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way again. I appreciate that he would like to see a world free of nuclear weapons. We are also signed up to article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which requires general and complete conventional disarmament as well. Does the Minister not accept, however, that the effect of having a nuclear-free world while retaining a conventionally armed world might be to make the world safe once again for prolonged all-out conventional warfare between large powers that are currently deterred by stable nuclear deterrents?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a nuclear weapons fanatic who presumably wants virtually every country in the world to have a capability. If we followed his line of thinking, that might well happen.
We shall continue to press for further deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, for entry into force of the test ban treaty and for negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. Progress on non-proliferation and disarmament may be linked to consideration by the United States of the possible deployment of a national missile defence system, to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred.

Mr. Dalyell: Will we also press for deep cuts in the Israeli nuclear capability?

Mr. Hain:: I have already said today that we want Israel fully to comply with and sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. That would be in Israel's interests and in the interests of peace and security in the middle east.
I was discussing national missile defence, which has been prompted by growing concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles. We understand these concerns. They need to be addressed, but missile defence raises complex and difficult issues. The United States has made it clear that before it takes any decision on NMD, it needs to take a number of important considerations into account, including the need to preserve strategic stability. We welcome that.
We firmly believe that these matters should be addressed bilaterally with the Russians through calm, measured dialogue that leads ultimately to agreement. We therefore welcomed the agreement reached last weekend by Presidents Clinton and Putin to intensify United States and Russian dialogue on ABM matters, and on a START 3 treaty. Despite their obvious differences, we hope they can reach an agreement. We have made it clear to both sides that we continue to value the stability that the anti-ballistic missile treaty provides, and we want it to be preserved.
This is not a safe or perfect world. Nations have the right to protect their people and British defence equipment can help them to do so. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife raised the question of arms sales, and the Labour Government have made arms exports more accountable and transparent than in almost any other country. We have established for the first time a tough code blocking exports of arms for either internal repression or external aggression. A European Union arms code is doing the same thing, and we initiated it. We have annual reports detailing the licences that we have agreed—one of the most open exercises of its kind in the world. We have nothing to hide, and many pressure groups have welcomed our transparency.
Britain is also leading the way on arms control by leading the way to ban land mines across the world, banning the sale of torture equipment, promoting a ban on small arms to conflict zones, and ratifying the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty. Whether through our arms control policy or the promotion of our strategic responsibilities, we can be proud of the Government's foreign policy and our defence capability.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for initiating the debate. The whole House will be grateful for the opportunity to debate these matters. We are blessed by the presence of two Ministers, from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence respectively, to provide a little light on the Government's foreign policy.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): United as always.

Mrs. Gillan: Methinks the Minister doth protest too much. During the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I felt that there was a great deal of unity between the Minister and the Liberal Democrats, but was pleased towards the end of that speech to hear at least some murmurs of sedentary dissent from those who sit to my left in the Chamber.
I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for North-East Fife—

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): The right hon. Member.

Mrs. Gillan: I do apologise to the right hon. Member for North-East Fife—[HON. MEMBERS: "And learned."] I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but I was surprised to hear him arguing for more money to be spent on defence. It is of course a gentleman's prerogative to change his mind, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman once called, in The Officer magazine of November 1991, for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure by 2000. Indeed, he went on to say that there was
no intrinsic merit in defence spending.
It appears that those words are long forgotten, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no allusion to his earlier aspirations. He must be a disappointed man when he thinks back on that magazine article.
I was grateful to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for setting out some of the Government's foreign policy, although I had heard it all before. Questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife seemed to slip past the Minister as he stuck carefully to his script. Perhaps when the Minister for the Armed Forces winds up we shall hear further and better particulars of the Government's foreign policy.
We entered the new century with a rapidly changing set of parameters against which the United Kingdom must position itself to steer a steady path in the interests of its citizens, wherever they may be. Technology and globalisation have brought more opportunity and information, and even greater threats than the relative stability of the cold war era.
As in the last century, we remain in a unique position. After the war, Winston Churchill placed Britain at the heart of three interlocking circles—north America, Europe and the Commonwealth. He and his generation had no concept of the global network world in which we now live, but his vision was perhaps more relevant and apposite to today's world than it was even to his.
A current audit of Britain's assets in the world reveals a unique collection and richness. First, there is our place in Europe and our membership of the European Union. Our transatlantic relationship is still very special, on security and military matters above all. We are central in the Commonwealth, an organisation that is potentially ideal as a network for the future. We have a permanent Security Council seat at the United Nations, and we are members of the G8 and NATO.
Our armed forces, so recently in action in Sierra Leone, are the envy of the world, and they have been much praised in the House. Our diplomatic service has a high reputation and extensive capability. We also have the English language, increasingly the lingua franca of the new world.

Mr. Spellar: How can English be the lingua franca?

Mrs. Gillan: I do not know whether the Minister went to Oxford or read classics. The words are lingua franca.
We are conveniently placed in a time zone that falls between north America and the far east. London is the pre-eminent international financial centre, which puts Britain at the crossroads of world financial markets. We are the world's fourth largest economy and second largest global investor. We have a unique combination of assets, giving Britain a vast global reach. In a world in which physical geography matters less and less, we should not think of Britain as being on the periphery of anything. We are not on the edge of some core vision of Europe; we are not an adjunct to the USA; we are not an island offshore of anywhere. Quite the reverse; today's network world places us right at the heart of the global system, and that should underlie the UK's strategic position.
There is no doubt that the main requirement of our foreign policy should be to protect and promote our interests, both immediately and in the longer term. We all have vested interests in stability and peace. However, with the speed of technological developments, our interests are even more vulnerable to developments around the world. Therefore, our strategic interests need to be served by an ever more complex set of requirements.
It is therefore sad that the Government seem to have only one hook on which to hang their foreign policy—namely, an ethical foreign policy. They enunciated that policy at the beginning of their term, but it has proved to be disastrous. They claim that their ethical foreign policy has been a roaring success, but the examples of the rocks on which that ship has foundered are littered over the three years of their governance. Whether it was the treatment of Chinese protesters during the visit of the Chinese President, the failure to sign the United Nations resolution condemning China's record on human rights, supplying weapons that have ended up in the hands of child soldiers, the leaking of Select Committee reports or diplomatic gaffes in Asia and Israel, no one can now believe in the Government's ethical and moral credentials, or even in their competence.

Mr. Gapes: Does the hon. Lady recall when the Commonwealth had 48 members, and 47 of them were against one member? Could she tell us who was Prime Minister then?

Mrs. Gillan: This is not a quiz show. Quite frankly, Labour Members' levity simply shows the disrespect with which they are treating this debate. They have reacted just as I was getting to the tricky bit, where I remind the Minister that, in his interview with the New Statesman, he himself condemned the ethical dimension to the Government's foreign policy. I believe that he himself admitted that the ethical dimension had been
consigned to the memory hole.
Rest in peace.

Mr. Hain: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Gillan: Those were the words in the article.

Mr. Hain: No.

Mrs. Gillan: I advise the Minister to go and refresh his memory by reading the article.

Mr. Hain: Really—try harder. If the hon. Lady were quoting from the New Statesman in context and


accurately, she would find that that statement did not appear in quotations from me. She should, therefore, withdraw her remarks.

Mrs. Gillan: I should withdraw nothing. Methinks, again, that the Minister protests too much. He admitted to the interviewer that the ethical dimension had been
consigned to the memory hole
within the Foreign Office. The ethical dimension stands condemned out of the Minister's own mouth—and my goodness does he find that embarrassing.
One of the first considerations in foreign policy must be whether to act alone or in tandem with others. No foreign policy can truly be conducted alone, but there can be problems with any proposals that would lock our foreign policy capability within a European common foreign and security policy—as, for example, full political union in the European Union would inevitably require. Not only could we possibly sacrifice our agility in protecting our own interests, but we could seriously impede our ability to help others. Acting solo will still frequently be right, as will acting jointly, but we should not have our hands tied by placing the United Kingdom in a European straitjacket.
Evidence has been provided by the way in which the situation in Zimbabwe has developed in the past few months. It seemed to be an extraordinary move on the Government's part to choose the European Union as the vehicle to send warnings to President Mugabe about the events that were unfolding with land invasions and killings. A message more loaded with colonial connotations could not have been imagined.
The right partners, and the right international vehicle, should have been the Commonwealth. It is within the family of the Commonwealth that there could have been the opportunity of diminishing the violence and providing the catalyst for constructive negotiations. Instead, we now have a situation in which I understand even United Kingdom observers have been effectively prevented from being part of the observer group at the forthcoming elections. That is not the most satisfactory of outcomes.
The Commonwealth is, after all, a ready-made network. It has perhaps too readily allowed itself to be seen as an organisation for a former age, but it should represent the future. It is a multi-ethnic global grouping, geographically random in a world in which geography matters ever less, but closely linked by ties of history, trade culture, language and friendship.

Mr. Bob Russell: Would the hon. Lady care to say something about British dependent territories—which no hon. Member has yet mentioned in the debate? Should not the House be reminded that the residents of those territories were full British citizens until 1981?

Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about the British overseas territories. If he had listened to speeches that I have made previously in this Parliament, he would know that I am a great supporter of the British overseas territories. Indeed, I have been extremely worried about perceived attacks on their activities and independence. Occasionally, the Government

have been seen to be putting pressure on the overseas territories to introduce legislation that they did not wish to introduce. I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the overseas territories. I, too, would include them in the picture.
I was talking about the Commonwealth. The modern age is one of networks, and the Commonwealth has a golden opportunity to become a really powerful grouping for tomorrow. The Commonwealth is far less constrained by bureaucracy than other international structures. It comprises about one quarter of the world's population and about a quarter of its nations, and it has a growing waiting list. It also contains some of the fastest growing and most dynamic countries on earth.
The Commonwealth of the future has huge potential in advocating good governance and as a source of stability that can attract investment and wealth creation. That must be the agenda of the Commonwealth network of the future, although it must be admitted that today's Commonwealth does have a long way to go to achieve that.
As I said, the crisis in Zimbabwe demonstrates the need for the Commonwealth to step up when a member state starts to run off the road. We believe that any credible foreign policy would contribute to the development of the Commonwealth as a global network for the benefit of its members—as a force for stability, as a means of promoting the values of the rule of law, democracy and the open economy, and as a possible basis for the better distribution of aid.
We should be flexible in choosing the right partner for any task that we have in hand. Sometimes, we will want to work extremely closely with our European neighbours; sometimes, with individual allies. Circumstances vary and events change. In an age of exceptional fluidity, we cannot allow ourselves and our policies to become frozen and ossified in a ponderous bureaucratic system that can only respond at the speed of the slowest.
To be able to do any of that, we have to be able to make some choices of our own. We have to maintain and modernise our armed forces, and—yes—we have to do so within NATO, not outside it. NATO, not the European Union, is the key. However, that is not the same as saying that there is no strong case for greater European defence co-operation and a much stronger European branch of NATO. There is such a case. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) who, back in June 1992, started the process with the Petersberg tasks.
European nations need to make their own choices about carrying more of the burden of defence. The current plan for a common European security and defence policy involves neither that nor a stepping up of Europe's capability. Most European Union countries are cutting their defence budgets. By placing the matter within the European Union framework, we will encase it in committees, bureaucracy and trap it in the creeping embrace of EU institutions.
Concerns about that issue have been echoed by the United States Administration. ESDI seems to be have been designed by people who are concerned, first, with endowing the EU with another of the trappings of statehood. The actual practical viability of a European army comes a poor second. At its worst, in some parts of the continent, it is a visible expression of a chilling and growing anti-Americanism which I hope will be resisted.
There are those who resent the emergence of the USA as the sole remaining superpower and believe that the EU must form itself into a countervailing superpower. I look forward to hearing the Minister give us the Government's views on that issue.
We believe that that mindset is worse than simply being unrealistic and vain—it is positively harmful. If it encourages America to turn its eyes further westward, to the powerful allure of Asia, we shall have inflicted a devastating blow to the basis of our security: the Atlantic alliance. For that reason alone, it is essential that Britain should lead Europe and clarify our position on the national missile defence programme. There may be resistance to it, but that is what leadership is all about. Just as, in the 1980s, the then Conservative Government took on the one-sided disarmers of CND and won the argument with the public, today, the Prime Minister must be prepared to do the same. After all, the role should not be unfamiliar: in the 1980s, he and his colleagues, including the Minister of State, were all engaged in the argument, albeit on the other side.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, I look forward to the Minister's comments on the Government's stance toward the national missile defence programme. Despite the recent negotiations between President Putin and President Clinton, and their welcome announcements on reducing weapons-grade materials, the world is not a safe place. It is even more essential that we gain an insight into the Government's thinking as countries such as Libya, North Korea, Iraq and Syria continue to develop weapons with increasing range, yet the Government have failed to enlighten us. Their disingenuousness is revealed in their amendment, which is really a means whereby Ministers can avoid telling us their true position.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On previous occasions, Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have told the House that they support national missile defence. Would the Conservatives support NMD even if it had the effect of breaching the anti-ballistic missile treaty?

Mrs. Gillan: When sharing a platform with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have made it clear that I would encourage the Government to participate fully in the NMD programme. The Government themselves have been extremely ambivalent: the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said that he did not like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited, but the Secretary of State for Defence said subsequently that the history of our close friendship with the United States meant that the Government were very sympathetic to such requests. It is not for me to answer for the Government: we will be letting the Government off the hook if we do not press for clarification to be given tonight, not only for the House, but for the wider audience watching the debate.

Mr. Hain: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: No—I have been generous in giving way and I am about to conclude my speech.
The modern world is faster, more integrated and interdependent and more potentially lethal than it has ever been before. We need to exploit our potential and the

assets of this country to ensure that our foreign policy contributes to peace and stability and the prosperity of an increasing number of people around the globe. I look forward to listening to the Minister lay out the Government's position.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Reference has been made to the situation 20 years ago, and I should like to take the House back to that time. I believe that any future threat to the unity of European countries, the United States and NATO is more likely to come from the return of the prince of darkness, Richard Perle, to a position of influence in the United States Administration under the new Bush presidency, if that comes to pass, than from the limited development of practical measures to strengthen defence capabilities and co-operation in Europe, on which the European strategic defence identity programme is based.
Reference has been made to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1980s. No doubt the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has the information in his files, but I should like to place on the record here and now that I was a member of CND for many years. I am no longer a member, having broken with the organisation in 1989 because of my belief that unilateralism was a tactic, not the principle. I took the position that tactical steps forward were required.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: Let me finish these remarks first.
I recall that in the early 1980s, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) addressed the CND national demonstration in Hyde park. That was what I wanted to say when I attempted to intervene on the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is probably glad that he did not give way to me. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats was subsequently given the nickname of "Paddy Backdown" by people involved in the peace movement, because of his party's change of policy during the 1980s. We all have our baggage, and it is not right for the Liberal Democrats sanctimoniously to attempt to appear above it all and to score points against other parties; they should recognise their own history and change of beliefs.

Dr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Gapes: I shall now give way to a man who has not changed his position, but I shall comment on that when I reply to his intervention.

Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for skilfully anticipating my first point, which is that whereas the Liberals and many Labour Members, such as him, have changed their position, some of us have been saying the same thing all along. However, is not the hon. Gentleman telling the House that when we faced a threat from a nuclear superpower, he wanted to give up, unconditionally, our nuclear deterrent, whereas now, when we are not facing such a threat, he wants to keep it?

Mr. Gapes: No, what I am saying is that a man called Mikhail Gorbachev came on to the scene, international


relations were transformed, the old cold-war adversarial politics became out of date, and we had to move on. The hon. Gentleman's position has not changed since the 1980s—in fact, it is the same as it was in 1953, when Joseph Stalin died. That is the problem with a certain brand of Conservative thinking. As the world changes and becomes more complex, as international relations change and as technology changes, politicians have a duty to respond to that changing environment. The ability and willingness to do so marks the difference between a political party and a sect.
The debate gives us the opportunity to discuss several different issues, including national missile defence. I shall not make extensive remarks in that respect as I had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 17 May in which I set out my views. However, I fear that we face a potentially serious problem, which is the decoupling of the United States and Europe if the US goes ahead with NMD and unilaterally abrogates the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The recent discussions between President Clinton and President Putin were welcome, but we must recognise that the two men did not agree on that issue. I fear that unless we in Europe unite to send out clearer, more forceful signals across the Atlantic, the misperception that we are not worried about the implications of NMD for future security co-operation might arise in some quarters in the US.
I believe that we all—even the Conservatives—must think through the implications of implicit or explicit support for a programme that breaches a centrepiece of arms control, the ABM treaty. If that treaty goes, there will be no START 3, the process of arms control will unravel, and there will be an increase in the number of Chinese missiles, which will have knock-on effects in India, which will have knock-on consequences in Pakistan—we will have issued a proliferator's charter. That is the danger facing the world in coming years. We have to preserve a measure of anti-ballistic missile control, because if we do not, the counter-measures adopted will include an increase in the number of nuclear weapons and their worldwide proliferation.

Mr. John Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that such unilateral action by the United States, which he describes as severing the link, is likely to be exacerbated if America regards Europe—a common European defence policy and, ultimately, a common European defence force—as an alternative to NATO? Will that not make it easier for isolationists in America to pursue not only the policy of which the hon. Gentleman warns, but an entirely different military course from that followed by western Europe?

Mr. Gapes: The European strategic defence identity is how to get the 2 million-strong armed forces of NATO's European members to be capable of deploying 50,000 or 60,000 personnel in an effective action at one time. It is not beyond the wit of European countries to do that. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent Defence Committee report, in which we went into such issues in considerable detail. The report contains much information that might be helpful to him and reassure him that the issue is one of practical measures to make the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance more effective, for which

the Americans have always called. Clearly, if the message that such moves are a substitute for NATO is somehow put across, it will cause the Americans alarm. That is not the intention or the policy of this and other European Governments. Indeed, in the St. Malo declaration, the French and British Governments agreed a formula that strengthens, not weakens, the European pillar of NATO.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's honest assertion that strengthening the European pillar will strengthen NATO as a whole is not shared by all our European neighbours. Many in Europe see the political project of the united states of Europe as intrinsically tied to the establishment of a discrete military identity.

Mr. Gapes: I do not want to labour the point; I shall move on. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee report.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not care much for the hon. Gentleman's historical analysis, but I am rather more impressed by his contemporary analysis. In reaching the conclusion that he has, did he take any account of the letter written by Senator Trent Lott, which was signed by 25 Republican Senators and sent to President Clinton on 19 April, in which it was argued that even President Clinton's limited proposal was inadequate and that a future Administration should go very much further? Will that assist stability?

Mr. Gapes: Absolutely not. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing that to my attention.
I want to address the wider aspects of the debate. Although the speeches of Liberal Democrat Members have referred to the question of arms sales, it is interesting that that is not mentioned in the motion. I wonder why. Perhaps it is because there are different views in the Liberal Democrat party.

Mr. Campbell: No, it is carelessness.

Mr. Gapes: All right.
If we accept that all 180-plus countries in the world have a right to national self-defence, and we do not want every country to try to build an indigenous defence industry, some arms transfers from some countries to others will be inevitable. In such circumstances, we cannot take the purist position of saying that there should be no arms sales anywhere. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that is not his party's position. We therefore need greater transparency, United Nations and European Union registers—this Government have been very much at the forefront of calls for their introduction—and greater accountability to Parliament and for what happens. I look forward to the day when Select Committees have the powers of those in some other Parliaments on scrutiny of such items and appropriation budgets. However, that is another debate for another day.
We have made considerable progress over the past few years and have certainly moved quite a way since the scandals of arms to Iraq and the Scott report. However, there is more to be done and I hope that the Government will introduce legislation in the not too distant future. My fundamental problem with the Liberal Democrat motion lies in the phrasing of its first sentence, which states:


the strategic interests of the United Kingdom will best be served by collective action.
That does not allow for any national decision that is not tied to a collective organisation. Therefore, the Government's amendment is right to state that the UK's strategic interests
are normally best served through collective action
because there are circumstances in which a country must act alone to defend its territory, citizens and interests. It would be a big mistake to adopt a position that implies that there are no circumstances in which a country would take such action. Of course, doing so is permitted under article 51 of the UN charter. Not providing for that is an error in the motion.
The Defence Committee recently published a report on the annual reporting cycle of the Ministry of Defence. In it, we drew attention to the fact that the defence budget is under great pressure. We are doing more and more and expecting our service personnel to work far more efficiently—increasingly in complex international situations. The report states that there is cumulative evidence of problems of overstretch and that the finances should be rebalanced in the spending review.
My plea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that we recognise that if, as a permanent member of the Security Council, we are to do excellent work such as that in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and that done by British personnel whom I met who are monitors on the Kuwait-Iraq border or those pursuing Operation Bolton—which is a means of stopping the aggressive fascist regime of Saddam Hussein launching a further attack against the small states in the Gulf—resources must be made available in the comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gapes: I cannot give way again; I am sorry but I must conclude.
Strategic interests are about more than international organisations. I had the pleasure today of hosting a reception in the House for Voluntary Service Overseas. VSO sends young people from this country to assist in developing countries worldwide. An early-day motion on today's Order Paper highlights the areas in which it is involved. I believe very strongly that non-governmental organisations and the voluntary sector have a very important role in promoting Britain's strategic interests. Likewise, the BBC World Service, the British Council and other bodies that are funded to some, or to a large, extent by the taxpayer are very important in representing this country and fostering its perception in the rest of the world.
For a country such as ours, which is dependent on international trade and which has an international language and excellent academic institutions and worldwide links, it is vital that we are seen to be internationalists and that we are internationalists. That also applies in the European context. We gain much more from our involvement in Europe and our position in the European Union precisely because we are members of it than we ever would if we were to adopt the narrow-minded isolationism that some on the Opposition Benches wish to pursue.
I have covered several different areas, but owing to interventions I shall conclude. I hope that the House will have further opportunities to discuss these wide-ranging issues in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. John Hayes: I have only a couple of points to make. The first is that when Britain's strategic interests are debated in the House, a fundamental difference between the parties is revealed. The Conservative party is the only truly national party—the only party for which national interest is at the heart of all its considerations of foreign and international affairs. That difference is rooted in the history of political parties and parliamentary debate and is partly the result of the liberal elite and the liberal establishment—[Laughter.] I use those phrases not because they are topical and popular but because they have always been the terms by which I refer to the middle-class left.

Mr. Bob Russell: Middle class? Me?

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman attempts to distract me from my main theme.
The difference may be explained partly by the psyche of the left. National interest is always considered grudgingly and unenthusiastically, as a matter of acquiescence, by the liberal left. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) looks at me with some surprise, but he will remember the great debate between Gladstone and Disraeli in 1876. [Laughter.] I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, is not as familiar with these historical matters as some other hon. Members are. I do not blame him for that; I blame his teachers.

Mr. Russell: He went to Oxford.

Mr. Hayes: That is even worse. I blame his teachers and lament the fate of his pupils.
The debate in 1876 about the Bulgarian atrocities was between Gladstone, who believed that Britain should take military action in pursuit of a greater moral interest, and Disraeli, who said that
the permanent and abiding interest of England
should lie at the heart of our considerations about when to intervene, use force, commit money and risk lives in an overseas adventure.
The nonconformist conscience may be a laudable thing in certain circumstances but it should never be allowed to subvert or obscure Britain's national interest. That historical philosophical difference legitimately and genuinely lies at the heart of the difference between the parties when we consider these matters.

Mr. Keetch: rose—

Mr. Hayes: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt tell me more about the Bulgarian atrocities of 1876.

Mr. Keetch: I did not intend to mention the Bulgarian atrocities. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that his party is the little Englander party, whereas our party and the Labour party may be internationalist parties. We should be quite clear about that, because I remember another Conservative politician mentioning wars in far-off places between people of whom we knew nothing. Does he agree that that attitude still exists in the Conservative party?

Mr. Hayes: No, and I will use another historical reference to illustrate why I do not agree with that. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) talked about a narrow-minded isolationism just as the hon. Member for


Hereford (Mr. Keetch) talked about a little Englander mentality. When there was that debate in the 19th century between the Liberals and the Conservatives, the Conservative party was the imperialist party that looked with more than affection—with loyalty, indeed—to the countries and peoples in the empire, while the Liberals were more narrow minded and were often reluctant imperialists.
That is not exclusively true, and you will no doubt point to Joseph Chamberlain as a Liberal imperialist in your next intervention, but it has to be said that he became more of a little Englander than many of the Tories who survived that debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must remember to use the correct language and that if he uses the words "you" or "your" he is addressing the Chair. He must also remember that he should be addressing the Chair and not turning his back on it.

Mr. Hayes: I apologise profusely, Sir Alan. I know that you are very familiar with these matters, being a student of the Conservative party's history. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to move on to my second major point. The first point, Sir Alan, was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is having a rash of little mistakes this evening. I should be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hayes: It must be my excitement and enthusiasm in dealing with interventions from Liberal Members.

Mr. Spellar: First, let me give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to clear up his confusion between Joseph Chamberlain and Neville Chamberlain. While he is trying to wrap the Tory party in the patriotic flag, can he say whether he approved of the Labour party insisting that Churchill should lead the country in the second world war and forming a national Government, which the Labour party has always done? His attempts to smear the Labour and Liberal parties in this regard are quite despicable.

Mr. Hayes: There is no confusion between Joseph and Neville Chamberlain. It was Joseph Chamberlain who, in the 1906 election, pursued a policy of tariff reform—which could be caricatured as an isolationist, little Englander policy—which cost the coalition of which he was a part so dear electorally.
There are times when national interest becomes paramount in pursuit of a noble objective, and the Minister uses the example of the second world war. Of course I acknowledge that there are many good, noble and patriotic people of all parties in the House, but the bottom line is that there is a deep philosophical difference, when push comes to shove, on the issue of national interest. No one in the House forgets it completely, but it is a matter of how high a priority one gives it. I was illustrating that point by reference to the debate between Gladstone and Disraeli. There should not be any disagreement between the Liberal Democrats and me on that issue.
My second point is that the fundamental premise adopted by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) at the beginning of his

speech seemed to me to be flawed. He said that the popular wisdom was that a world post-mutually assured destruction, in which the old certainties and inertia had disappeared, was a less secure world; but the real issue is not the implications of the changing power relations and balance of armouries between the great nations. Much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) alone has pointed out, is the changing nature of technology and communications.
The real change that brought about the necessary reappraisal of the way in which we deal with our strategic interests and our international affairs comes from changes in international communications. It is true to say that the world becomes a less certain place as it becomes more flexible. It is also true to say that the cultural and commercial changes that have taken place, at a pace that few could have anticipated, over the past decade—and will take place at an ever-increasing pace because of further changes in technology—create different imperatives and a new dynamic. Contrary to the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, that is much more important than the issue of the post-mutually assured destruction reassessment of defence priorities.
The second mistake that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is believing that acknowledgement that the world is more uncertain and more rapidly changing—a more global place—necessitates more global institutions and a supranational approach to the organisation of defence. I suggest that it reinforces the need for national identity. As people become less certain and as the world becomes less secure, the need becomes ever greater for a strong sense of belonging that is rooted in history and part of a continuum that draws on the collective wisdom of ages.

Mr. Keetch: The hon. Gentleman has several times mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who is a Scotsman who is proud of his Scottish and British traditions and who can in no way be described as a little Englander. My right hon. and learned Friend said nothing that suggested that the United Kingdom should give up its ability to act independently when it needed to. He simply said that a less certain world required international agreements, and he listed them cogently and coherently.

Mr. Hayes: With respect, the motion deals only with collective action, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no significant comment about separate, national action. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Ilford, South. The motion and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution both lack balance. I do not say that international affairs do not necessitate alliances and collaboration, but the exclusion of national action appears to be at the heart of the differences between us in this debate.
This rapidly changing and less secure world makes a case for an enhanced sense of belonging through a reinforced nationhood and the opportunity for national action. It also renders inflexible institutions less, not more, relevant. The problem with the European Union as the basis for a common defence policy is that it is unsuited to the flexibility that is required. That is why I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who, like many in the EU, see it as the way forward.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South talked about the strengthening of the European pillar, but that will undoubtedly give the isolationists in America—many of whom are on the right—the opportunity to make a case for unilateral American action. That is what I wish to avoid. We should reinforce those institutions such as NATO—an association of sovereign nations—and the Commonwealth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham referred, which have the necessary flexibility to deal with a more rapidly changing world. That is why we reject the EU as an appropriate institution to undertake the sort of collaborative action that will be increasingly necessary.
Anyone who has any doubts about what I have said needs only to examine President Chirac's perspective. On 30 May, he addressed the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union and spoke about "reinforced co-operation", and that was fair enough. However, he also talked about decisions
ultimately being the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, which is the only body with the international legitimacy to decide on the use of force.
That clearly is not the case. NATO is the paramount body in that sense, because it has secured and guaranteed peace in western Europe and the rest of the western world, for my lifetime and longer. President Chirac also argued for the creation of a necessary assertiveness that
requires us to define our own objectives and to implement our own policies, and to use every resource to achieve them.
There is good will in the Chamber about the role of NATO, and I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ilford, South is entirely honourable in his wish to strengthen the European pillar. It stems from his conviction that that would be supportive of NATO and necessary for its future success, but I doubt that that view is universally held. I do not think it is shared by significant numbers of significant people in the European Union, who I believe see the matter as part of a bigger political objective.
In conclusion, I believe that our strategic affairs, policy and perspective should be based on three things. First, our strategic approach should be based on a willingness to support our friends and allies, and especially our historic friends and allies in the Commonwealth and in our former colonies.
Secondly, it should be based on a determination never to endanger the lives of our citizens—including our troops—merely to indulge the conscience of the liberal elite, still less that of the liberal elite of other nations in Europe. Thirdly, it should be based on a proud, rigorous and unstinting determination to defend our national interest.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife described that approach as visceral. I believe that it is a proud and vigorous approach, and a popular one. I suggest to the House that it is shared by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country, regardless of how they vote in general elections.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the "successful military campaigns" in Kosovo. I applaud the actions of individual service men but this debate provides a justified opportunity to ask questions which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will answer when he winds up.
An article in today's edition of The Scotsman is headed "British NATO Troops Clash with Serbs". It states:
British NATO peacekeepers shot and wounded three Serb men in the Kosovan Serb enclave of Gracianica after a senior British officer was attacked in the town as he tried to calm a demonstration.
There was no question, my life was in danger, and our lives were very much threatened," said Brigadier Richard Shirreff, commanding of 7th Armoured Brigade, or "Desert Rats", after the incident at 11 am yesterday.
I emphasise that it is no part of my case to criticise the troops involved. For two years on national service as a teenager, I was proud to wear the emblem of the Desert Rats in 7th Armoured Brigade, but the incident raises a question about which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will say something.
What exactly is going on in Kosovo? Under that scorching sunshine, it seems that a situation is developing in which troops from Britain and other KFOR countries are suffering the opprobrium of both sides. The House should be told exactly what that situation is.
The BBC News website today has a report that states:
Five people were wounded in the attack in which two grenades were thrown from a passing car.
A British military spokesman, Flight Lieutenant Rob Hannam, said the troops believed they and the brigadier, who is responsible for security in the town, were in imminent danger.
He said troops fired warning shots into the air. When that failed to disperse the demonstrators, one or more of the soldiers fired into the crowd.
What does the Ministry of Defence expect to happen in the next few blisteringly hot summer months? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that question when he winds up the debate.
I was lucky enough to have an Adjournment debate at 1.55 on the morning of 22 May, starting at column 836 of the Official Report, when the House went very late. Reference was made to Richard Butler and sanctions to Iraq. I note that last week, Richard Butler was reported to have said that he now thinks that sanctions will serve no purpose. In the Adjournment debate, I referred at some length to the visit that I made with the former Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, who is not a naive man, and to the fact that we thought that sanctions were simply counter-productive.
We are grateful to the Liberal Democrats for having initiated this important debate. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who opened the debate, referred to Richard Butler, and I wish to refer specifically to Mr. Butler's book. I am not asking the Minister to respond to these somewhat detailed questions, but I think that they should be put on the record.
On page 4 of his book, Richard Butler says about Saddam launching another attack:
Every thoughtful leader in the region assumes he may do so again.
The fact is that Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have all established embassies in Baghdad and are taking a different view. Indeed, it is reported that the Saudis are looking—ambiguously, at any rate—at the Qatar proposals that have been put forward by the Gulf Cooperation Council. In these circumstances, what is the Government's position? Do they agree with Richard Butler?
Secondly, do the Government agree with the scenario described on page 5 of Richard Butler's book? He writes:
A hit squad from somewhere in the Middle East travels to New York City carrying a one-litre bottle filled with one of the several chemical weapons agents we have long known Saddam Hussein to be developing. Using a simple sprayer (like one that a gardener or house painter might own), they diffuse the contents into the air over Times Square on a Saturday night or into the main concourse at Grand Central Station at 5:30 P.M. on a weekday evening. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people die agonizing deaths as a result. Because of their own handling of the substance and the strategic concern to maintain ambiguity over the source of the attack, the terrorists may have to be prepared to die themselves.
There should be a considered response to this statement. Richard Butler is, I would say, dreaming up this situation, but the Government may take a different view and base policy on a hypothetical threat.
Page 17 of Butler's book refers to EMPA. The Minister is a scientist, and he will know that this stands for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. Butler says:
The chemists had swabbed each of the pieces of metal to remove and collect the surface residues for analysis. As one might expect, they found a spectrum of substances on the metal surfaces, ranging from ordinary dirt to chemicals of various kinds. But there were also clear traces of a chemical called EMPA, short for ethyl methyl-phosphoric acid. It was this finding that had caused Horst Reeps to blanch. EMPA is a degradation product of one and only one known compound in the universe—the chemical VX, one of the most toxic substances ever made.
Are the Government prepared to submit the evidence for this, which I know weighs heavily with the Prime Minister, to R.J.P. Williams, the emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at Oxford, fellow of Wadham, who is recognised as the greatest European expert on EMPA?
My last question on Butler's book is this: what is the Government's reaction to chapter 8, headed "Kofi Annan Goes to Baghdad"? In this chapter, Butler is deeply critical of the United Nations Secretary-General. They cannot both be right, and I am entitled to ask who the British Government believe is right.
My Adjournment debate took place at 1.55 in the morning on 22 May. I asked three questions and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office could have been forgiven for not answering them at that time of the morning. However, they bear repetition. First, I said:
the United Nations has been reporting since August 1999 on the stock situation in Iraq involving food and medical supplies, and these monthly reports show a satisfactory distribution picture. Why are Her Majesty's Government continuing to identify a picture of hoarding of these humanitarian supplies?
Secondly, I said:
the President of the Security Council in January 1999 reminded the Security Council that there should be monitoring of the impact of sanctions on the human condition of those countries under sanctions, and also that the chairpersons of sanctions committees should visit their respective countries to obtain first-hand information on the ground. Why does that not happen in the case of Iraq, and what are the Government planning to do about it?
Finally, I asked about the fact that there was
no sign of an end to the stalemate between the UN Security Council and the Government of Iraq with regard to resolution 1284. This stalemate is entirely at the expense of the civilian population. Keeping that fact in mind, what do the Government propose as an initiator of the resolution to end the stalemate?—[Official Report, 22 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 835.]

Those are important questions, but as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall leave it at that.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Earlier, the Chamber took on the air of a confession box as, for a while, Members on both sides of the House confessed to their membership, or otherwise, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I shall begin by making my own confession. I think that I am still a member of CND; I certainly would not have been seen dead without my CND badge when I was younger. More important, I was a member of an even better organisation—Doctors against the Bomb.
I am now a fully paid-up supporter of my party's policy on nuclear weapons but, deep down in the heart, a doubt lingers as to whether the male politicians in this world of ours have really got it right—I suspect that they are all stark raving mad, but enough of that.
I want to address an issue that has not been raised so far and on which the UK could really make some impact. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), this country is uniquely placed between the USA and Europe, with huge links to Commonwealth countries. We must thus be the nation best placed to influence the greatest number and to strengthen the United Nations. That is what I shall talk about primarily.
At the beginning of this week, I attended a lecture at Kew gardens in my constituency. It was world environment day. The lecture was given by Michel Batiste from UNESCO. He was speculating on whether the world had a future and on what we could do to influence the world's future. He presented two options, one of which was that the USA should rule the world; it was the strongest nation, and we all had to accept that and bow down under the yoke.
After making that suggestion, he argued strongly that the United Nations was the only truly world body that could do anything about securing our future. He called on everyone present to do all in their power to strengthen the UN.
Why does the UN matter so much? It is tempting to dismiss it as a powerless sideshow in global politics; it has to be supported, but those who are interested in it are mainly elderly academics and—dare I say?—anoraks. Why do we not, ask the hardliners, deal directly with the power brokers in the G7, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation? Let us deal directly with them, they say, so that the really powerful nations can get their own way. They suggest that that is a much easier and quicker way of doing things. The strongest wins every time.
The world must have a body of member states that can challenge each other on abuses of human rights, on rotten trade agreements and on the invasion of territory. We have to attempt to create such a world order. However, the United Nations was created 50 years ago and it desperately needs reform. It is constantly bypassed by the stronger countries, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Its recent peacekeeping operations in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Bosnia—the list is not in the right chronological order—have all been a failure and everyone has deplored what has happened.
We want discussion on the reform of the United Nations. First and most important, its dues must be paid in full by every member country. The recent withholding of $300 million by the United States to win family planning concessions was outrageous. I am astonished that the British Government did not condemn that more strongly. We must all pay our dues—even the mighty United States of America. It is no good our complaining of weaknesses in the United Nations if we do not give it the resources to do its job. If it does not do the job properly with the right resources, we then have to spend more money clearing up the mess. Where are the economies to be made in that?
Secondly, the Security Council has the prime responsibility for international peace and security. However, there are two classes of members on the Security Council. There are five permanent members, any one of whom can veto decisions. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States can hold the world to ransom single-handedly. The structure must be revisited. Perhaps the General Assembly should be allowed to challenge it. The nine other members of the Security Council have to be elected every two years. Why are the permanent members so safe? Perhaps we should review who they are.
A constitutional conference needs to be called to discuss reform of the United Nations. Why do the Government not take the lead on that? To set an example, why could this country not refer a resolution that we wish to veto to the General Assembly for decision? Perhaps other countries would follow suit.
The General Assembly needs revision. It needs to have a more democratic basis and a better weighting of votes. The millennium summit of the UN will be held in September and I plead with the Government to try to pursue reform of the UN at that summit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) criticised the United States for not ratifying treaties, but why are we not taking the lead on ratifying the treaty on the International Criminal Court? Why is that taking so long? It is five years since the Scott report was published and two years since the arms White Paper was produced, so why do we still not have legislation to control the arms trade and arms brokering?
The annual report is very welcome, but the phrase, "We only export arms if they will not be used for external aggression or for internal repression," sickens me. I do not know how Ministers can repeat it like parrots. They do not believe what they are saying; I do not believe what they are saying. Why are we not leading the world on that?
Why are we not finding ways to make the world financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, answerable to the United Nations? Why should they always get away with it?
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed, by our history and our treaties, to reform the United Nations and to lead the world. I was proud to be present in the Foreign Office when the new Government announced a foreign policy with an ethical dimension and, as a weak and feeble woman, I nearly cried when I heard those words; indeed, I get emotional just thinking about that now. We had a new Government who would give a new moral lead to the rest of the world. Sadly, however, that has not happened.

I am no dove, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife will tell the House. I fully supported the previous Government's actions in Iraq and this Government's actions in Kosovo, and I am proud of what they have done in Sierra Leone. However, they have left much undone, especially on arms sales. Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries all over the world have received arms from us, and they should not have done. All over the world, there are questionable trade agreements that may lead to environmental damage. We have had to make excuses because British companies, encouraged by the Government, have been involved in projects that have caused human rights abuses and environmental damage. We have to do something about that.
Why do not the Government stop being so timid? They are constantly looking over their shoulder because they are terrified of offending anybody, especially the United States, and of taking a stand. We are a great people, and the Government have a large majority. Why do they not show the world what we can do?

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their motion. However, I shall do so in classic Liberal Democrat form by combining damnation with praise in a strange admixture by adding the caveat that the inclusion of Sierra Leone was extraneous. It made the motion diffuse and was done simply to bring forth pedantic criticism.
Surely what we did in Sierra Leone was a successful action in support of a friendly, legitimate democratic Government with whom we have a special relationship because the country is an ex-colony and a member of the Commonwealth. Our action was in support of United Nations action, and troops, and by doing what we did we saved life and limb. Frankly, I was surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) commented that we went there to save diamonds. We went to save life and limb—in the most hideously literal sense, as some of the terrible pictures from that country show.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to check the Official Report, he will find that I did not say that we went to Sierra Leone to save diamonds; I asked how we would defend ourselves against the caricature that we intervene only when issues such as oil and diamonds are at stake. I did not represent the Government's position, which I have consistently supported, in the way that he has described.

Mr. Savidge: We defend ourselves with the fact that we went to Sierra Leone to save life and limb. We succeeded in doing so by going in quickly rather than waiting for a United Nations resolution, and we were correct to do so. We should congratulate our troops and our Government on that.
In any case, I regard that issue as a diversion because the crucial issue is weapons of mass destruction, which the Liberal Democrats were right to raise. I totally agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that since the cold war we have had a decade of inertia that has led to a great increase in our peril. Again, we should congratulate the Government, particularly on what they did in the nuclear non-proliferation review conference in New York.
We should remember the pessimism with which many of us went into the conference, and the acute apprehension that we felt during that conference, yet, at the end of it, there was agreement between the five nuclear weapons states—the five UN Security Council members—in the statement to which the motion refers. There was real meaningful dialogue between those five states and the members of the New Agenda Coalition. There was real involvement and discussion with the non-aligned countries. As a result, the conference came out with a successful agreed statement.
I believe that the British delegation played a crucial role in each stage of that agreement. That was an important success. Those on the delegation—particularly the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—should be congratulated on their part in that.
Among the positive things in that statement were its positions on the comprehensive test ban treaty, the fissban treaty, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, Israel—I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that that was important—India and Pakistan, nuclear weapon-free zones, START 2, START 3 and the need to make further progress in reducing nuclear weapons, working towards the elimination of those weapons. However, we must now see delivery. Therefore, I accept that part of the motion and the Government's response to it.
We need to see delivery. Yesterday, the House debated Northern Ireland. I see a parallel with Northern Ireland. When paramilitary organisations say that they will disarm, I find that encouraging, but when they actually allow their weapons to be inspected, I find that more encouraging. When they start decommissioning, I find that most encouraging of all. I repeat the statement from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife: greater inertia, if anything, creates even greater peril because we are at a watershed.
I am pleased that the leadership of all parties in the House supports the comprehensive test ban treaty. My early-day motion last year showed that the overwhelming majority of Back Benchers from all parties support that—in fact, it gained more support than any early-day motion since the general election.
Obviously, it is encouraging that the Russian Duma has endorsed the test ban treaty. We await in particular the position of the United States and China because they will undoubtedly bring other states in with them. I endorse what the United States Administration are trying to do, but we must desperately seek to encourage Congress to take positive action on the matter.
In the United States, people say that they are worried about rogue states. Banning tests is one of the best protections against rogue states. If they are banned, it will mean that weapons are untested. Weapons that are untested are far less likely to work and weapons that are far less likely to work are far less likely to be used.
The test ban treaty is one of the most verifiable of all treaties, which is another reason to support it. The Government should do everything that they can to encourage our United States allies in Congress to endorse the comprehensive test ban treaty. The House should do

everything that it can to support the Government in that. Perhaps we should again support an early-day motion, or find some other way to encourage them.
The fissban treaty is a matter of urgency. Only last month, a convoy of illicit nuclear weapons material was intercepted when being smuggled from the former Soviet Union into Afghanistan. What Russia has said recently about a preparedness to export nuclear weapons technology to other countries is worrying, although I suspect that that may be part of the bargaining that is going on in relation to NMD.
Talking of NMD, I pass on to the ABM treaty. I am glad that it was said that that must be preserved and strengthened, but NMD does cause concern, as does the attitude of the Clinton Administration and, even more, the Bush candidacy, which at times has almost the most naive and most frightening foreign policy since Goldwater. What perhaps causes even more concern is the thought that it could become an election issue and so might not be discussed on a totally rational basis, or be totally based on rational considerations of strategy.
I fear that that is very much a magic and Maginot approach to strategic problems: the sort of magic fix or Maginot line that is supposed to create a miraculous cure for all defence problems. It sounds wonderful until it is tested and found not to work. Not only may it not reduce danger—it could increase danger. If the ABM treaty is torn up, both Russia and China are likely to increase their weapons. It could also destroy reliance on all other treaties.
Even if agreement is reached with Russia, it must also be sought with China, which I know is not party to the bilateral talks. If China is not brought on board, there is the danger that it will increase its weapons and start exporting weapons. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) referred also to the danger of a domino effect across Asia.
Further points have been made. Does the United States believe in deterrence? If the Americans have billions of pounds to spend on national missile defence, might they not increase world security better by spending it on other things, such as helping to stabilise the states of the former Soviet Union and other states, or as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) suggested, putting money into the United Nations?
Even if NMD worked and could overcome decoy systems, what about the possibility of transporting weapons of mass destruction in lorries, in suitcases or by boat?
What if the United States goes for national missile defence? What should Britain's attitude be while we await a decision? Some people would say that the US is our ally, so we must go with whatever it wants. That seems to be the attitude of some of the Tory Europhobes, who are desperately worried about qualified majority voting in Europe, where at least we have a vote, but who do not worry too much about the United States making any decision that it wants, where we have no vote, and expecting us automatically to accept it. I took it that that was the reason for the extraordinary coyness of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she was asked what Conservative policy would be if the US decided to tear up the ABM agreements.
The United States may offer us other things. There is a possibility of our being offered dollars, jobs or cover. I believe that supporting NMD could bring greater danger not just to the people of Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, but to global security. Therefore, as good allies of the United States, we should be constructively critical and urge caution. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said, there is the danger of a new unilateralism in the United States which could completely undermine nuclear disarmament.
We must make progress on nuclear disarmament, through bilateral and multilateral action, as the Government amendment states. I would add "plurilateral" action. The word "unilateral" was not used, probably for fear of raising old slogans and past sterile arguments, which, surprisingly, were raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, and which might get the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) over-excited, to the point of endangering his health.
However, there is a place for unilateral initiatives and unilateral reciprocal actions. That is particularly true in the case of the United States and Russia. If there is no treaty, the problem can be overcome by taking reciprocal unilateral actions, which do not have to be passed by an awkward Congress or an awkward Duma.
There is also a place for a unilateral response to a reduced threat, which is what has been made by both Conservative and Labour Governments in Britain in the past few years. We should not be frightened of the word unilateral. It has a place, along with other methods of seeking to reduce nuclear weapons, which we must get on with. Reference was made to comments by the Secretary of State for Defence. I believe that he said disarmament would not happen in weeks, days or months. He did not mention years, and I hope that he was not thinking in terms of years. I am certain that we must deliver far more quickly than that. I return to the comment about inertia and peril, and the basic point that, just as we are looking for action to take place in Northern Ireland, so the non-nuclear weapons states are looking to the nuclear weapons states for action.
There is no defence against disaster on a national basis. It must be on an international basis. The Palme commission said that we must have a common security. We can no longer have national security; we need a common security for all mankind.
Some people argue that if national missile defence were technically possible, it could be useful under the control of a United Nations agency in future, when nuclear disarmament was genuinely progressing. That view may be a little starry eyed. At least I am sufficiently realistic to acknowledge that we are considering a distant future. I suspect that all three aspects—the technology, a sufficiently trusted and efficient United Nations agency in an atmosphere of mutual international trust, and enough genuine progress on nuclear disarmament—are distant. However, in the meantime, we must make every endeavour to realise the promises of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and reduce what probably remains the greatest threat to the future of our species.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is passionately committed to nuclear disarmament, but he

also has an extraordinary sense of fairness. He has therefore curtailed his remarks to allow me to speak, for which I am most grateful. Doing that is typical of him, although he knows that I profoundly disagree with the thrust of his argument.
Before I deal with the points that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made about the non-proliferation treaty, I want to consider the comments of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). The hon. Gentleman and I have the privilege of sitting side by side on the Select Committee on Defence. We agree more often than most people would anticipate. This evening is one occasion on which I must endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments on Liberal Democrats' past positions on the matters that we are considering.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South is right that, in 1990, the Liberal Democrats called for
a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of the century—
in other words, in 10 years. Piquancy is added to that statement by the knowledge that three days before the 1992 general election, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stated on "Newsnight":
I don't believe a 50 per cent. cut is either likely or a policy; nor has it ever been a policy.
However, it was a policy, which was not reversed until the Liberal Democrat party conference of September 1994.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman is conducting an interesting historical review, does he remember that when the Conservative Government introduced "Options for Change", they said that that was the last occasion on which they would cut the defence budget of the United Kingdom as long as they were in power?

Dr. Lewis: When the Conservative Government made cuts in our defences at the end of the cold war and I was not a Member of Parliament, I believed that the cuts went too far. It is interesting to note that when Liberal Democrat or Labour Members are challenged about further cuts, they refer to cuts under the Conservative Government. If they believe that those cuts were too great, they should not advocate more. Yet they often do.
If the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) is not satisfied with the example that I gave earlier of the Liberal Democrats facing both ways, perhaps I could give another. The right hon. Member for Yeovil also stated:
Britain's Trident deterrent is a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible.
On another occasion, he stated:
I remain wholly opposed to nuclear weapons. I remain of the firm belief that Britain could afford to get rid of its nuclear weapons tomorrow and would not suffer in consequence.
Yet, again, three days before the 1992 general election in the same "Newsnight" report to which I referred earlier, the right hon. Gentleman stated:
I never took the view that this country did not need an independent deterrent.
That shows that too much unilateralism can be bad for your memory.

Mrs. Gillan: The intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was


disingenuous, because in 1991 he said that there was no intrinsic merit in defence spending. Does not that endorse Conservative policy?

Dr. Lewis: I am shocked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have made such a statement, and I am even more shocked that I overlooked it in my researches. I feel thoroughly ashamed of myself and I thank my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.
Let me move on from the points of agreement with the Labour party to the points of disagreement. I intervened on the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to point out the dangers that would accrue to international society and peace if we ever achieved a nuclear-free world, heaven forbid. He responded by implying that I am a nuclear weapons fanatic. He knows all about fanaticism and nuclear weapons as he declared at the height of the cold war:
Unilateral nuclear disarmament offers the only hope of an end to the arms race and the only hope of any chance for peace …

Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis: No, time is too pressing.
We did not have unilateral nuclear disarmament, but we did have peace. The hon. Member for Ilford, South thinks that that was all thanks to that marvellous Mr. Gorbachev, but I remind him that he and his party were advocating that this country be stripped of its vital nuclear deterrent in the days of Brezhnev, of Andropov and of Chernenko—years before Gorbachev came to power—and that, had that been achieved, the prospect of Gorbachev ever leading the Soviet Union would have been infinitesimal because the hardliners would have beaten NATO. What mattered was that, during those vital years, Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in this country. with the full support of the Conservative party, stood firm for the nuclear deterrent and resisted the arguments that Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have at least had the honesty to admit they supported in those days.

Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Lewis: I must give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Savidge: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to propound the theory of history that Mr. Gorbachev was brought to power by British nuclear weapons? I am a little puzzled.

Dr. Lewis: I shall briefly enlighten the hon. Gentleman. When the cruise and Pershing deployments were being considered, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties were, with the full support of their leaderships, trying to undermine those deployments. When Britain had to decide whether to replace its strategic nuclear deterrent, a battle was going on in the Kremlin between the hardliners and the reformers. If the hardliners had achieved the unilateral nuclear disarmament of NATO, which is what their measures were meant to achieve, the likelihood of the reformers taking power in the Kremlin would have been very significantly reduced.
Let me deal with the non-proliferation treaty, article VI of that treaty and the nuclear-free world. Article VI is often cited in relation to Britain's supposed commitment to nuclear disarmament. The preamble to the treaty states that nuclear disarmament should occur "pursuant to"—that is, in conformity with—
a treaty on general and complete disarmament …
Article VI similarly commits the signatories
to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the arms race at an early date—
which has been achieved—
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control …
Those last two commitments are about achieving not only a nuclear-free world, but an arms-free world. If people want to convince me and the majority, who I believe think like me, that it would be wise to have a nuclear-free world, they will also have to convince me that they can achieve an arms-free world. As I said in my intervention on the Minister, having the former without the latter would simply make the world safe once again for prolonged, full-scale conventional warfare between the current nuclear powers.
The other day, I had a letter published in the national press on this very subject. I posed a number of questions. These are the questions that I posed then, and these are the questions that I would be grateful if the Minister would consider answering. There are only five; it would be something if the Minister answered only one or two in his winding-up speech.
My first question was this.
If nuclear weapons had not existed, do they
—advocates of a nuclear-free world—
honestly believe that the Cold War would have remained stalemated rather than boiling over into a third global conflict?
Secondly,
If nuclear weapons ceased to exist, what would prevent the first nation to cheat from using secretly manufactured devices before such a temporary monopoly of them was broken?
Thirdly,
Why should a nuclear weapons-free world be achievable when, as President Yeltsin admitted in 1992, the Soviet Union completely flouted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention by cheating for 20 years, while other countries disarmed?
Fourthly,
How would nuclear-disarmed countries deter attacks from states with other mass destruction weapons, such as biological agents and nerve gases?
Finally, I asked—as I have this afternoon—
Is not the recommendation for a nuclear-free world … a recipe to make the planet safe for full-scale conventional warfare yet again?
I waited eagerly for replies in the columns of The Times, but I waited in vain. I did not, however, wait in vain for any sort of reply, because one came, from Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat. Professor Rotblat and I used to exchange letters in The Times on these very topics throughout the 1980s, and I like to think that, while he won the Nobel peace prize, I won the argument. I did, because the nuclear weapons that he wanted to be disposed of are still there. When Professor Rotblat and I traded arguments in the 1980s, I used to ask him to name a single country that would give up its nuclear weapons as a result of Britain's giving up hers. He was never able to do so.
This is all that Professor Rotblat had to say in his reply to my five questions. He said:
The proponents of a nuclear-weapon-free world have long argued that, if some states insist on keeping nuclear arsenals for their security, other states are bound to seek such security for themselves through the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
That is very good as a generalisation, but let him give me an example of a single state that would make the decision according to whether Britain kept her nuclear weapons.
Finally, the professor made an admission that goes to the nub of the issue. He said:
I am not claiming that a nuclear-weapon-free world would be absolutely safe. There is no such thing as absolute safety. But there is no doubt in my mind that, of the two alternatives, a world without nuclear weapons would be safer than a world with them.
Professor Rotblat has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Those are exactly the arguments that were used for unilateral nuclear disarmament back in the 1980s.
I conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I conclude, within the time that I was advised I could take, with a quotation that dates from the earliest days of thinking about nuclear weapons. It comes from another famous winner of the Nobel prize. He did not win the Nobel prize for peace; he won the Nobel prize for science. His name was Professor Sir George Thomson, and he served as the scientific adviser to the Royal Air Force during the second world war.
As early as October 1945, when the Chiefs of Staff were considering the impact of atomic weapons on the future nature of warfare, Professor Thomson wrote a short paper in which he said:
the tendency in the recent past has been to wage war more and more unrestrictedly, and to press it more and more to complete conquest. It is just possible that the atomic bomb may reverse this trend.
He added:
no nation can hope for such a chance unless it has power of retaliation against probable rivals, otherwise it will either have to surrender at discretion or accept destruction without even the satisfaction of damaging its enemy in return.
The truth is that just as the biological weapons convention has been wholly ineffective in removing biological weapons from the world, so a nuclear-free world would simply repeat what happened after disarmament in the 1930s. Disarmament was taken to new heights of complexity, but achieved only this: the peace-loving democracies disarmed each other and themselves, while the rogues, the villains, the bandits, the dictators and the tyrants re-armed in secret, threatened democracy and destroyed the peace of the world.

Mr. Paul Keetch: It has been said several times that Opposition day debates distinguish the three political parties from each other. The speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has certainly distinguished his political party from the others. He might have quoted from those wonderful Tory organs, "What's Left" and "What's Liberal".

Dr. Julian Lewis: I did.

Mr. Keetch: At least your arguments were those of the 20th century, while your colleague, the hon. Member for

South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), offered those of the 19th. We intend to use the arguments of the 21st century.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have not used any arguments at all.

Mr. Keetch: I am sure that you used to, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been a good and good-humoured debate, but I wish to clear up some misrepresentations. My hon. Friends and I are not calling for an end to the independence of Her Majesty's armed forces. We do not want a European army. We do not want Britain to be part of some great international police force of intervention. It remains the right of every sovereign nation to defend its people and its territory. That was right for Britain 60 years ago, and it remains right today under some circumstances.
We are justly proud of the action taken at Dunkirk, of which we have heard much this last week. I am particularly proud, because my father was there. We have also recalled this week the events of 6 June 1944, when British and allied troops from across the world, of every colour and creed, began the liberation of Europe on the beaches of Normandy. That international co-operation has continued ever since in many guises—through the United Nations, in NATO and in the Commonwealth. In this century, that co-operation will increasingly be with our partners in Europe.
That does not mean that we wish to decouple from the United States. Nor does it mean that the United States does not wish us to behave in that way—although when the shadow Defence Secretary tries to peddle lies in the United States Senate, people might be forgiven for thinking so. We cannot expect the USA consistently to shoulder the burden of European defence. Co-operation, far from undermining British military capability, can only enhance it.
We are rightly proud of our contribution in Sierra Leone—the excellent work of the Parachute Regiment and 42 Royal Marine—but that action will be worth while only if the United Nations is seen to win in Sierra Leone. What a shallow victory it would be for British diplomacy and our military expedition if action in Sierra Leone were to fail in the months to come because of an inferior UN mission, bereft of British leadership. It is no good going in hard now if we are to throw everything away later.
There has been criticism of the UN's role in Sierra Leone. The UN does not act in isolation and is only as strong as the will of its individual members. If it fails, we, as a permanent member of the Security Council and as the former colonial power in Sierra Leone, must accept our share of the blame. Often in the past the UN has been asked to keep peace where none exists. If nations with the capability to support the UN—financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment—choose to turn their backs, UN failure will be their failure. The failure will not lie with those nations which, although they have lesser military and economic capabilities, dedicate their men where others fear to tread.
Britain has never adopted such an isolationist pose. Nor should we do so now. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) talked of national missile defence, questioning the basis on which it is being agreed. We are deeply concerned that if the


USA embarks on that path, Russia will spend billions of dollars that it cannot afford, not to build a similar shield but to increase the number of its multiple warheads to try to overwhelm such a shield. That will lead China, then India, then Pakistan, to upgrade in turn. Is that really the kind of world we want in the 21st century?
Britain should use its unique relationship with the United States to warn against such a programme. It is no longer any good for a Secretary of State for Defence from this Government to come to the House and say that he will consider letting the US use RAF Fylingdales only as and when it may or may not ask us. Conservative Members have a position on the matter, as have Liberal Democrats Members. The House should be told the Government's position.
There has been some talk in this debate of overstretch—which is not only a real problem but the main problem facing the strength of our armed forces. All the evidence from the "Continuous Attitude Survey for Service Leavers" shows that the effects of Army service on family life is a key element in our troops leaving. Not recruitment but retention is the main problem. The House can debate our global positions and strategic reach, but if we do not have the trained men and women to do the job, our talk is nothing more than that—just talk.
We have welcomed much of what the Government have done. We welcome the service families taskforce, but—as I think Ministers accept—it needs to go further. Last week, at the annual conference of the Army Families Federation, Liz Sheldon, the organisation's outgoing chair, said of the Government's policy that
the reality is not living up to the vision.
Today, the Government must again undertake to make a reality of that vision.
We heard an excellent opening speech from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said:
Just because we can't do everything doesn't mean to say we can't do something.
The Minister was absolutely right about that.
The Minister described the chemical weapons convention as a success, and it has been. We are now expecting an inspection regime for the biological weapons regime. Why should not the Government consider proposing such a regime for nuclear weapons? Could not Ministers make that proposal as a positive contribution to the debate on nuclear weapons?
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) spoke about Conservative Members' policy. She also mentioned my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and the fact that we once had a policy of cutting defence spending by 50 per cent. I was very young then. However, we no longer need such a policy, because the Tories have already implemented it for us. Between 1989 and 1997, the then Tory Government cut Britain's defence budget by more than 40 per cent. The current Government have continued those cuts.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked some very important questions about Kosovo, and some very detailed questions about Richard Butler and Iraq. I am glad that I do not have to answer them, because I know that he wants the Minister to do that.
I think that the finest speech we heard today was by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who underlined our commitment to the United Nations and to UNESCO. She also underlined our criticism of countries that have not fully funded and met their obligations to those wonderful organisations. She again repeated our criticism of the arms trade.
The United Kingdom is justly proud of the men and women who wear the uniform of our armed forces, who serve in all parts world, under adverse conditions, and sometimes with poor equipment and in areas of great danger. All of us who from time to time support British military actions must bear a responsibility to ensure that they get the best.
We believe that the strategic defence review undertaken by the Government a couple of years ago was a valid attempt to improve our armed forces' capabilities and effectiveness. However, it was a one-off event in time—a snapshot—and has not been a continuous process.
Some people have criticised the SDR for being Treasury-driven. It must be said that Treasury's hand seems still to clamp down on our defence budget. Why were our troops sent to Kosovo with inadequate tents? Why were our troops sent to Sierra Leone with inadequate medical cover? Why did it take the Government so long to order the C17, which is crucial to an expeditionary force, and why so long for Meteor? Why have this Government not ordered a single warship for the Royal Navy?
Why have there been the year-on-year so-called efficiency savings which every fundholder in the forces says are nothing more than cuts? They are a 3 per cent. cut in the defence budget, and the Government should accept that they are.
Now is the time for the Government to look again, to identify our strategic priorities, to state the case on the international issues that Liberal Democrat Members have raised in this debate, and to make Britain the force for good which the Prime Minister describes.
The world has moved on since the SDR and we need to revisit the foreign policy assumptions on which it was based. We need to think again about NATO enlargement and what that means to EU enlargement. Within both of those institutions, we must face up to those nations that do not pull their weight in terms of their defence spending. We need to think of defence less as an industrial job creation policy and an opportunity for arms salesmen, and more as the process of equipping our forces and those of our allies with the tools they need. When we send in our troops to fight, they fight to win—the House must put the men and women who serve us first. I commend the motion to the House.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have felt quite at home in the debate, given that, at some points, it almost turned into a confessional for several hon. Members—but let us draw a veil over that.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) quoted Churchill, which reminded me of one of Churchill's remarks about speeches full of clichés—but, as the remark was somewhat indelicate, we shall have to draw a veil over that, too. The hon. Lady eventually moved on from clichés and addressed the issue of national missile defence, to which we shall return in a moment. However, she did not give way to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on the crucial issue of precisely what she would sign up to and what she was so urgently urging us to sign up to.
Between generally castigating the rest of the world, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about those who had changed their position. He is a well-known entryist who has certainly changed his party, if not his position, which led me to wonder whether he has now become a reverse entryist to enable him to discredit some of the positions adopted inside the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly pointed out the deficiencies of the Liberal Democrats' motion. It is interesting that the excuse they offered was their party's usual inefficiency. To those who know them from either the inside or the outside, that is not surprising. However, I note that the motion does not include the regular calls for additional expenditure issued by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). One wonders whether, in making such calls, he speaks for the whole of his party, or even its Front-Bench team. Perhaps he will clarify that matter on some future occasion. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South about the Budget are welcome, but he will understand that, at this stage in the financial cycle, I cannot comment on them.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), apparently using a JCB, dug ferociously into the archives of history. We shall pass of over his comparison between the two Chamberlains; suffice it to say that, if he represented a west midlands constituency, he would probably be able to distinguish more clearly between them. He raised a serious issue—one that is regularly raised by Conservative Members—which is the notion that a European security and defence identity creates the spectre of detachment between Europe and the United States, and therefore reinforces isolationist tendencies in the USA.
As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, the reverse is true: in a world wherein US orientation is moving, gently and slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is only by Europe assuming a greater share of its own defence and making a more significant contribution that we and those in the US who want to maintain transatlantic international links will be able to argue that Europe is bearing its share of the burden. A European defence identity reinforces those long-standing transatlantic links; it does not negate them. The hon. Gentleman quoted Disraeli at some length. I have to say that we rarely see signs of Disraeli's one-nation party being alive and well in the modern Conservative party.
I took somewhat amiss the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we intervene only in places where there are oil or diamonds. Neither is present in Kosovo.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not say that. If the Minister reads the Official Report, he will see that I said

that there was a caricature of our intervening only in connection with oil or diamonds, so we must be given proper explanations of why we intervene and set out in public the criteria by which we judge it necessary to intervene.

Mr. Spellar: We obviously do not do so because, as far as I am aware, there is neither of those things in Kosovo.
As we all know, our people in Kosovo are doing an excellent job, to which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) rightly drew attention, as he did to our need to back up them and their families. He conceded that we have made considerable progress, particularly through the service families taskforce. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to reiterate those points.
I am pleased to announce some more improvements and enhancements. We have recently approved a procurement of the necessary infrastructure to give our forces in Kosovo access to the internet so that they may stay in touch with their families. Personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, but we are breaking new ground in providing the facilities in an operational theatre. The equipment will be installed in the next few weeks and will be seen by our troops as a real improvement to their quality of life in theatre.
That announcement is in spite of the schoolboy sniggering on the Opposition Benches on Monday when I referred to e-mail. I do not know whether it was the concept of e-mail that was alien to them, or whether it was a complete misunderstanding of the needs of service families to stay in touch. Either way, it was a bizarre performance and it will certainly have been noted by our service personnel and their families.

Mrs. Gillan: On examination of the record, I believe that the Minister said on the most recent occasion he spoke of the matter from the Dispatch Box:
We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 10.]
As he has chosen to use his winding-up speech to announce yet again the introduction of e-mail services, will he give us the exact date of their introduction?

Mr. Spellar: Yes. Had the hon. Lady been listening, she would have heard me say that personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, and that those in operational theatre will have it in the next few weeks. We have already placed the orders. That is a considerable enhancement. Yet again, the Tories show that they are completely out of touch with how people live and the improvements that people want.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spellar: If I may move on.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister says that he is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Spellar: The Liberal Democrats congratulated our forces in Sierra Leone. In that context, I should point out


to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that Commonwealth countries are playing a considerable role in that country. We are engaged with them in that operation and have been of considerable assistance to them. Our forces have been doing what they do best, and doing it professionally and quickly. Criticism of our role is not representative of the views of the United Nations. It sees that our provision considerably enhances its role and is of great assistance. The key element was our ability to make decisions and to move quickly.
We shall enhance that role. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced the leasing of four Boeing C17 aircraft to meet our strategic lift requirements. I am pleased to announce that those aircraft will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. With their capacity to carry a wide range of heavy equipment, including Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior armoured fighting vehicles and even the Army's new Apache attack helicopter, they will revolutionise our capability to deploy forces with real punch to deal with crises anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has been pressing me on the issue for some time and will certainly be pleased by the announcement. It is unfortunate that he is not able to be present as he is at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of Kosovo, can he tell me whether we are likely to find out who placed the grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff and the 7th Army Brigade? I realise that doing so might be difficult.

Mr. Spellar: It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source. Obviously, the authorities on the ground are conducting investigations.
I turn in more detail to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who moved the motion. I was slightly taken aback when he rather dismissed this country as a medium-sized economic power, not a member of the Security Council or a major force for good in the world. I thought that he over-egged the pudding on behalf of his client, the United Nations, and did not reflect its true views.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then came to the serious issue of national missile defence and the anti-ballistic missile treaty and the need for strategic stability. I got the feeling that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Hereford had been written over the weekend, before events had taken a turn.

Mr. Keetch: No.

Mr. Spellar: In that case, I exonerate the hon. Gentleman of having written the speech before the events, but not of failing to keep up with the news. He obviously had not kept up with the joint statements of the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on principles of strategic stability. The press release says:
They agree that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and stress their desire to reverse that process, including

through existing and possible new international legal mechanisms. They agree that this new threat represents a potentially significant change in the strategic situation and the international security environment.
They agree that this … should be addressed through mutual cooperation and mutual respect of each other's security interests.
President Putin, in his press conference, said:
we respect the opinions of our partners in negotiations, we think that what they say has a certain logic and to a great degree we agree with that logic. There are new threats arising that we must address but our proposal is to answer them together.

Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that they believe that the Russian Government are happy with national missile defence?

Mr. Spellar: The statement and the press conference emphasised precisely the point that the Government are making. We are looking forward to discussions taking place between the United States Government and the Government of Russia as the two parties to the ABM treaty, to allow them to deal with issues of threat.
Many of those who castigate national missile defence do not even acknowledge that there is a threat. The Russian Government acknowledge that there is a threat and want to work with the United States Government in order to be able to assess and respond to it. That is exactly in line with our policy. The policy of both opposition parties is deficient in this regard. They are both asking the British Government to make a response and a decision before the position of the key parties in the debate has been resolved.
We have sensibly been saying that we will await the outcome of the talks and the technical tests, and the decision of either the current United States Administration or their successor, and that we will then wait to see what requests they make of us. That is the sensible and balanced response. Neither of the opposition parties is dealing with the matter seriously or taking into account the way in which the debate is evolving. All their speeches pre-dated or ignored the statement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: What does the Minister say to the observation of his former boss at the Ministry of Defence that NMD had the capacity severely to damage NATO?

Mr. Spellar: That reinforces my point about how the debate has rolled on as a result of changes in Moscow.
In the broader debate, both opposition parties seem united in the belief that independent national identity and collective security are incompatible.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 229.

Division No. 220]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Jackie
Chidgey, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Brake, Tom
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Fearn, Ronnie


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burnett, John
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burstow, Paul
Gidley, Sandra






Harvey, Nick
Rendel, David


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sanders, Adrian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Keetch, Paul
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tyler, Paul


Kirkwood, Archy
Webb, Steve


Livsey, Richard
Welsh, Andrew


Llwyd, Elfyn
Willis, Phil


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Oaten, Mark
Mr. Bob Russell and


Öpik, Lembit
Mr. Andrew Stunell.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Doran, Frank


Alexander, Douglas
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Drew, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Ashton, Joe
Edwards, Huw


Atherton, Ms Candy
Efford, Clive


Austin, John
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Banks, Tony
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Begg, Miss Anne
Flint, Caroline


Beggs, Roy
Flynn, Paul


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Betts, Clive
Gardiner, Barry


Blizzard, Bob
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Borrow, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godsiff, Roger


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Milk (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chaytor, David
Hanson, David


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cooper, Yvette
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Crausby, David
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jamieson, David


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)





Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kemp, Fraser
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lepper, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruddock, Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Short, Rt Hon Clare



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


McDonnell, John
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McIsaac, Shona



McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWalter, Tony
Stevenson, George


Maginnis, Ken
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mallaber, Judy
Stringer, Graham


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Healey)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mitchell, Austin
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Todd, Mark


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tynan, Bill


Mullin, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Watts, David


Naysmith, Dr Doug
White, Brian


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, Bill
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pollard, Kerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Pond, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 41.

Division No. 221]
[10.11 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atherton, Ms Candy


Alexander, Douglas
Austin, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh






Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Begg, Miss Anne
Healey, John


Beggs, Roy
Heppell, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Hinchliffe, David


Benton, Joe
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Hopkins, Kelvin


Berry, Roger
Howells, Dr Kim


Betts, Clive
Hoyle, Lindsay


Blizzard, Bob
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Borrow, David
Hutton, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Jamieson, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Jenkins, Brian


Browne, Desmond
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)



Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Casale, Roger
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Caton, Martin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Chaytor, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Clapham, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Khabra, Piara S


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Lepper, David


Cohen, Harry
Levitt, Tom


Colman, Tony
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Cooper, Yvette
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Corbett, Robin
Linton, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Cranston, Ross
McCabe, Steve


Crausby, David
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cummings, John
McDonnell, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Darvill, Keith
McIsaac, Shona


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Dismore, Andrew
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dobbin, Jim
MacShane, Denis


Donohoe, Brian H
Mactaggart, Fiona


Doran, Frank
McWalter, Tony


Dowd, Jim
Maginnis, Ken


Drew, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Mallaber, Judy


Edwards, Huw
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Efford, Clive
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Flint, Caroline
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry
Mountford, Kali


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Goggins, Paul
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Olner, Bill


Grocott, Bruce
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Gunnell, John
Pike, Peter L


Hain, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Pond, Chris


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pope, Greg





Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quinn, Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Tynan, Bill


Salter, Martin
Ward, Ms Claire


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wareing, Robert N


Savidge, Malcolm
Watts, David


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunedale)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Spellar, John
Wyatt, Derek


Squire, Ms Rachel



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Jackie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Livsey, Richard


Brake Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Öpik, Lembit


Burstow, Paul
Rendel, David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Chidgey, David
Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tyler, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Webb, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
welsh, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Gidley, Sandra



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Andrew Stunell and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Bob Russell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the strategic interests of the United Kingdom are normally best served through collective action through the United Nations, NATO, the Commonwealth, the European Security and Defence Identity, and similar political, economic and military institutions and initiatives, and with allies, but that the United Kingdom should reserve the right to act independently where absolutely necessary; notes that the United States has not yet taken a decision to deploy a National Missile Defence, and that Her Majesty's Government has made clear, both to the US and to Russia, that it wishes to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and strategic stability, preserved; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to pursue its pledge to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons through bilateral and multilateral negotiations, including through the Non-Proliferation Treaty machinery; and recalls that a principal aim of the deployment of British forces to Sierra Leone was to allow the


deployment of additional UN forces, which is now well under way, and to support the UN effort there, and as such has been welcomed by the UN Secretary General.

Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. According to the Annunciator, we have just passed the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) by 209 votes to 41. I think that there may be some mistake.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. According to the Deputy Speaker, we have passed the Prime Minister's amendment.

Civil Protection (Isle of Wight)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): It seems appropriate to move from military defence to civil defence or, as the title of the debate terms it, civil protection. I know that that is a somewhat outmoded phrase for what is now known as emergency planning, but I wonder whether some policy makers in the Home Office have not moved on from the days of tin hats and sirens, or the even more ridiculous days when public protection was all about advising people to put a white sheet over the kitchen table and to hide under it in the event of a nuclear attack. In those days civil defence had a poor image, certainly among people who thought about the consequences of nuclear war. However, we are now talking about emergency planning, which is completely different.
I am grateful for this debate because the Isle of Wight has been uniquely disadvantaged by administrative events. Before 1995, the Isle of Wight was a county authority and the existing regulations meant that it had to have two minor authorities, so it was a county with two boroughs. That meant that the island attracted Home Office grants for emergency planning for two boroughs and a county. After reorganisation, it was recognised that we had particular difficulties because we were a county unitary authority. We retained a degree of Home Office comfort and our funding for emergency planning dropped only from £168,000 to £90,000 a year. Unfortunately, that comfort is being eroded. It was £63,000 for the year 2000–01 and is due to drop even further to some £53,000, or even, at the worst, £35,000 thereafter. If the Government drop the level beyond a point where we can employ a proper department, it is difficult to meet Home Office guidance for the service for which the grant is supposed.
One reason why the Isle of Wight is unique is not the nostalgia of having been a county for so long and now being a unitary authority, but because we must be self-sufficient in many respects. We are cut off from the mainland by the sea. Our nearest neighbours in Hampshire take some two hours to get to the island to offer any meaningful support. We have had incidents where the fire service has been so stretched that we have had to ask for support from the mainland, but instead of popping across a local authority boundary, those from the mainland must find a ferry, commandeer space on the ferry and come across. That makes a significant difference.
There is an added complication. Anyone involved with planning—which is, after all, about bringing emergency services together—must spend time talking to surrounding authorities that may have common interests. Again, it takes an incredible amount of officer time just to travel from one place to another.
We have made that case on a number of occasions. In October 1998, I led a deputation to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) when he was at the Home Office. I have written in the past to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who I am delighted to see is here to respond to the debate. Other than gaining an interim bit of support, we have not been successful.
I should like to point out what accepting the full cuts that the Home Office proposes for the service on the island would mean. It would be possible to continue the maintenance of an annual plan, but that would probably be the maximum that could be provided, because there is all the co-operative work on the more detailed matters such as port safety. We have an oil refinery to the north of us, and Cap de la Hague lighthouse is to the south of us. Those are potentially difficult problems.
The other day, I was at a conference at the Southampton oceanography institute where I was introduced as "The Member for the Isle of Wight, that useful breakwater at the other end of the Solent". That was fairly disparaging of my constituency, but the speaker made a valuable point in that we are a traffic island in the middle of an extremely busy bit of sea.
Minor mishaps are not unusual, and we have had some major mishaps involving shipping. We have had boats crashing into each other, crashing into light towers and being cut open and discharging oil. Major disasters have been narrowly averted, but incidents have needed the activation of the major incident plan. To anticipate what the Minister might say, can we not co-ordinate all that regionally? We cannot.
There is a need for local knowledge in dealing with many of those issues. We have some superb voluntary services working closely with our expert fire and rescue service. The health authority clearly needs input from emergency planners for its major disaster plan. It would be difficult to serve not only a population of 125,000, but the extra people who may come on shore quite quickly should there be a repeat, for example, of the Canberra near disaster a few years ago, when many passengers had to be evacuated in a hurry.
Over the past 10 years, there have been some serious events. After the big storms in 1986 and 1987, all the emergency services, the voluntary services and anyone who could be found worked flat out. They were co-ordinated according to a well-honed plan, and all the statutory and voluntary organisations knew their place in the scheme of things.
In 1994 there was a serious event involving the Canberra, which luckily turned out to be all right, but there was a major evacuation. In 1995 one of the holiday camps caught fire and a major evacuation was required. Again, support brought in from the mainland had to be co-ordinated. A number of oil spillages and unknown chemicals on beaches all needed the input of people able to co-ordinate the efforts of the statutory services.
The most recent significant incident occurred in December when there was widespread flooding all over the island, causing hundreds of people to evacuate their homes. There must be a system in place to get in the right people from social services and to mobilise the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. Such a system needs to be provided by people who are local.
If the council had accepted the Home Office cut in funding, there would not be a duty officer on call 24 hours a day. With a fund of no more than £50,000, three people cannot be employed to make sure that there is always somebody on the island who is wakeable, fit and on duty. The council considered the cuts unacceptable and is at

present supporting the service out of its general Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions revenue.
That is what councils get Government grant for, but we seem to be particularly unlucky with the Home Office. which sets standards for departments such as our fire and rescue service without funding what it expects us to deliver. The fire and rescue service is regularly inspected by the Home Office inspectorate. It gets glowing reports for its efficiency, and we are told that we cannot do with less than we currently have, yet the island general grant must subsidise our fire service by some 59 per cent.
It is extraordinarily difficult to keep cutting services that must be paid for out of the ordinary council income to support Home Office projects. I know that the sum in question is very small, but it is symbolic. Every Government Department makes requirements of the people living in my constituency and the local authority that looks after their welfare, without recognising the island factor.
A number of reputable accountants and consultancy companies have e examined the cost of maintaining services across a stretch of water. Even a few years ago, that was reckoned to be at least £6 per head of the population. That leaves a significant shortfall for a council that tries to provide services at least equal to those provided in the rest of England.
During the Scottish devolution debate, I almost intervened to suggest that should the Scots need a naval base on the south coast, I should be happy to offer my constituency, because the Scotland Office understands the extra costs and extra risks involved in living on an island. I am afraid that our political masters in this place and the civil servants in Whitehall think that the Isle of Wight is so far away that they do not have to worry about it, or they cannot see the little bit of blue on the map that makes us unique. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of how the Department has monitored our progress. Last year, he promised that the Government would monitor the island's emergency planning needs. I am ever hopeful that they will acknowledge that they must do something about it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I reassure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that I know where the Isle of Wight is. I have enjoyed its hospitality on several occasions. I was in Shanklin a few weeks ago, enjoying the weather and the fine opportunities for a holiday that exist in Britain on the Isle of Wight.
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Isle of Wight emergency planning services. They have done a good job on several occasions. It is the council's role, primarily through its Government grant, but also through its council tax income, to fund those services. I hope that the council continues to do that.
The Home Office provided a civil defence grant of £14 million this financial year. The payment contributes towards the cost of specific civil defence duties, which are defined in statute as countering the effects of a hostile attack by a foreign power. It is not, and never has been, intended to meet the full cost of ordinary emergency planning services.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the role of civil defence has changed in the past couple of decades. The Home Office is not supposed to fund all civil defence planning through the grant. It does not claim to do that because it is primarily the council's responsibility.
The restructuring of local authorities between 1995 and 1998 necessitated changes to the way in which the Home Office contributes to the civil defence function in local government. I am sorry to say that I cannot offer much comfort to the hon. Gentleman because the legislation essentially refers to war planning. It is therefore unlikely that overall funding will increase.
Changes in local government structure clearly had an impact on the Isle of Wight. As a result of the changes in local government, there were more eligible candidates for the grant, and we reassessed our allocation system. Change is always difficult, and the Isle of Wight is especially unhappy about the new method of funding. That is why I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House the rationale for some of the adjustments. I am also grateful for the chance to affirm how civil protection in England and Wales generally is enhanced by the new financial arrangements.
The previous system of grant distribution was based on a formula which was agreed with the local government associations in 1992. It was largely based on a two-tier system of local governance, which differentiated between county councils and smaller authorities such as district councils. The reorganisation of local government created several new all-purpose unitary authorities; each has a responsibility for civil defence and, consequently, access to a civil defence grant.
The reorganisation created numerous anomalies in the funding arrangements. They could he properly addressed only by introducing a new mechanism. The Home Office consulted with the Local Government Association and a new three-tier grant distribution was announced on 26 May 1999. The mechanism is based on the following rationale: all authorities with civil defence responsibilities will receive a basic allocation of £45,000 to ensure minimum, basic preparedness. County councils will receive an allocation of £10,000 for each district council in the county boundary to recognise the help that a county must provide to constituent districts.
Remaining grant after the first two elements have been addressed is allocated according to criteria adopted under the Bellwin scheme, which is operated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It sets a level of expenditure above which central Government may contribute to costs incurred by local authorities in responding to major incidents.

Dr. Brand: I appreciate the Minister setting out exactly how the new arrangements were arrived at, but he has just described the difficulty that has been created for the Isle of Wight, which had one county and two districts and would therefore have qualified for some £65,000 under the new arrangements. How can he claim that civil defence has been enhanced by a cut in funding? The island is unique. Powys is similar as it has a unitary county authority, although it is not cut off by the sea. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Isle of Wight

should be one of the unitary authorities for which Winchester receives an extra grant? That is not our understanding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his intervention.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Isle of Wight's status, with which I am familiar, in a moment. No doubt particular problems are associated with island status, but my experience is that no matter which council comes forward, it will identify the local difficulties that it has to face, which it says are unique, in the hope that the Government will identify the area as worthy of special treatment.
Let me continue the point about the Bellwin scheme. The use of that scheme acknowledges some relationship between population size and the work load of emergency planning teams in large areas. The new mechanism provides funds to all eligible councils. To ensure protection for areas in which grant is reducing, the impact of the new mechanism is being phased in during the current financial year.
Under the previous grant distribution system, each county council was entitled to £140,000 in its own right with a supplement of £14,000 for each district in the county area. That gave the Isle of Wight £168,000 in 1993–94, which was reduced to £153,216 by 1998–99. It was agreed with the local government associations that grant would be ring-fenced by county area as an interim measure until the new grant distribution mechanism was in place. When the Isle of Wight became an all-purpose authority after the merging of the county and two district authorities, it received far in excess of the £35,000 provided to similar authorities. The Home Office acknowledged that that anomaly should be addressed in the new grant distribution mechanism.
On 3 August 1998, the then head of the Home Office emergency planning division wrote to the Isle of Wight to say that we intended to reduce its grant for 1999–2000 to £70,000 in a move towards equalising the grant available to each all-purpose authority. Following representations from the Isle of Wight about that reduction, a Home Office emergency planning unit official visited the island on the 11 November 1998 to discuss how the reductions would be made with minimum effect on emergency planning arrangements. Subsequently, to acknowledge that the reductions would significantly affect the emergency planning funding arrangements for the island and to assist it in managing the inevitable further reductions—it was made clear that those reductions were inevitable—it was agreed that the allocation for 1999–2000 should be £90,000, not £70,000.
On 26 May 1999, the Isle of Wight was advised that, as a result of the new grant mechanism, its allocation would be £63,000 for 2000–01 and £53,546 for 2001–02. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we have to consider other areas with different problems. For example, in the context that I have described, it might be argued that the allocation of £168,000 to the Isle of Wight up to 1996–97 was excessive. Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield each received only £35,000. Obviously, all those authorities would say that they had particular problems in terms of emergency planning, given the size of their areas.
The local authority in the Isle of Wight argued that it should be given special consideration, for two reasons. First, it said that the status of the island was misunderstood. It maintained that, while the council was a unitary authority, it was also a unitary, or all-purpose, council. In its view, that means that, while other unitary authorities are located within areas that offer them strategic support from county councils or fire and civil defence authorities, the Isle of Wight has inherited both the strategic functions of the county council and the functions of the former borough councils. I do not accept that argument. Many other unitary authorities are in a similar position, with no county council or fire and civil defence authority.

Dr. Brand: It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would write to me listing the authorities that he has just described.

Mr. O'Brien: I will do that with pleasure.
The position of the Isle of Wight will have no effect on the level of its grant under the new arrangements. In 2001–02 it will receive, as a unitary authority, £45,000 as a basic allocation, plus a Bellwin element of £8,546. If it were treated as a county, its allocation would be identical, because it no longer has any constituent districts.
Secondly, the Isle of Wight has argued that its circumstances are special because it is an island. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman advanced that argument. However, the Home Office does not believe that the Isle of Wight is unique in its responsibility for civil defence, or that it should be allocated significantly more grant than other authorities with broadly similar responsibilities.
When my predecessor with responsibility for emergency planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), met a delegation from the Isle of Wight on 26 July 1999, those points were made. A paper was submitted by the hon. Gentleman, presenting the island's view that it was in a unique position and had been disadvantaged by the new grant distribution formula.
As I have said, I hafe found that almost all councils can come up with some unique element. I well remember, on occasion, arguing the case for unique elements in my county council.

Dr. Brand: When the Minister lists unitary authorities that are similar to Isle of Wight, will he list other English constituencies that are surrounded by water?

Mr. O'Brien: I think the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I would have some difficulty in doing that. I also think he must take my point that being surrounded by water is not the only basis on which an authority can claim to be unique. There are all sorts of bases on which authorities have been known to claim a level of

uniqueness—for instance, their population, income distribution, demography and communications. While I think it fair to say that there is a uniqueness in the fact that the Isle of Wight is surrounded by water, I am afraid that that uniqueness does not distinguish it sufficiently from other councils that may also claim to be unique.

Dr. Brand: Does the Minister acknowledge that being surrounded by water is just about the only criterion that does not appear in any of the grant allocation formulae?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall have to look at that and write to the hon. Gentleman. He may well he right: it may well not be one of the criteria in the grant allocation formulae. At the same time, other councils do claim particular problems, not perhaps unique, but sufficiently uncommon in relation to communications, demography, the ability to plan or the nature of establishments—nuclear and other—in their areas that unusual emergency planning is required.
Whether risks and hazards should form part of the distribution mechanism has been explored in depth many times. I am of the view that any attempt to set one type of risk against another would be controversial, with little prospect of successfully agreed outcomes among local authorities. Any ensuing mechanism would be unduly complicated and costly to administer, given the funding involved. As I said in opening, the grant is only a contribution towards civil defence expenditure.
The Government allocate funds largely by negotiation with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman may argue that our allocation should be greater, and we could debate the extent to which the taxpayer should fund different areas. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will tell me that we could use an extra penny on taxation—

Dr. Brand: Not on this one.

Mr. O'Brien: I accept that.
When the Government are asked to treat an area uniquely, the decision lies not only with the Home Office or the Government. In practice, we discuss these matters and negotiate with the local authority organisations. There is some compromise and agreement over allocation of the formula.

Dr. Brand: Having conceded that being surrounded by water is a unique factor, does the Minister recognise that it is unlikely that the Isle of Wight will ever receive support from local authority associations on having that feature introduced as a unique factor?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Many other authorities—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.